This week, the editors of Fairer Disputations are pleased to present a special four-part series. In the essays below, two philosophers—one a radical feminist, one a conservative Catholic—debate the morality of sexual intercourse and its implications for women’s equality.
First, Holly Lawford-Smith makes the sex-negative feminist case that “sex is morally bad in at least four respects. It 1) is male-centered and male-identified; 2) is inegalitarian; 3) is instrumentalizing; and 4) violates negative freedom.”
Second, Nathan Schlueter responds, drawing on Immanuel Kant and Karol Wojtyla to argue that Lawford-Smith’s own premises lead not to sex-negative feminism, but to “sex-positive personalism.”
Next, Lawford-Smith responds to Schlueter, challenging him to explain “why his vision of sex is one that atheists, feminists, lesbian and gay couples, and those who feel no need to have their relationships recognized by the church or the state, have reason to accept.”
Finally, Schlueter emphasizes that “arguments were purely philosophical in nature, and did not appeal to any theological sources.” He argues that the reason Lawford-Smith does not share his conclusions is that she has accepted “the reductive transactional view of sex” that fueled the sexual revolution.
