John Hayward Posted: 10 October 2008
Keywords: Sex & Families,
Last night I opened the opposition for the Cambridge Union Society's freshers' debate, which called for a new sexual revolution.
It proved a rather confused affair in that, despite clear differences in the worldviews of the speakers on both sides of the debate, there was considerable overlap in some of the arguments made and in some of the things that we were all calling for. For instance, everyone accepted that sex is wonderful but that society's attitudes towards sex are not what they should be. Consequently, contrary certainly to my expectations - I never thought we had a chance of winning - the result was surprisingly close, with the motion being carried by a statistically insignificant majority of just five votes, and with almost as many people again abstaining.
The debate was opened by Susan Quilliam, the author of The New Joy of Sex, who I considered inviting to cross the floor, as she noted some of the ways in which people are hurt as a consequence of their sexual choices. Quoting her own words back to her, I observed how right she was: "Today we are increasingly aware of the hurt that results from what was once mistakenly thought to be 'free love.'"
Second for the proposition was gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who started by arguing for better and earlier, but age-appropriate, sex education in schools. Apparently oblivious to any contradiction with his call for increased state interference in our schools, he went on to make various points that were essentially complaints about the way the current Government has increasingly restricted our liberties in recent years, concluding with a call for the age of consent to be lowered to 14. "After all," he declaimed, "if it's good enough for Catholic Croatia, why not also for Britain?"
Following an inconclusive floor debate, the proposition was closed by Zoe Margolis, otherwise better known as the "Girl with a one track mind", Abby Lee. Once again, I almost invited her to cross the floor, but by that point it was clear that the motion had been poorly formulated, as she made similiar calls for greater relationships education to those I had made: "We need to educate young people about sex and relationships so they properly understand the value of others is far greater than the simple pleasure that they can share in a fleeting moment of passion."
At the heart of my argument, I observed that society is wrong when it portrays sex as a shortcut to intimacy, for although sex reinforces intimate relationships, sex cannot create intimacy. In fact, it should come as no surprise that casual sex actually undermines a person's life chances of finding true intimacy. For, if we practice treating relationships as disposable and as though they have no impact on us or on those around us, then of course we are going to find it difficult to break that habit when we finally try to settle down in a long-term, stable relationship.
Also opposing the motion were the president of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, who basically preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Song of Solomon, and one of the Union's own entertainers, who didn't so much summarise the arguments as preach his own brand of social-sexual evolution.
In truth, over the last couple of generations, we have all allowed ourselves to be conned by the barrage of "My life, my card" advertising that constantly tells us "It's all about you!" As a consequence, our identities have become increasingly narrowly defined by a self-centred obsession with our sexual relationships, to the cost of our wider networks of relationships. In reality, to borrow another more insightful slogan, "I am who I am because of everyone else" - and you are who you are because of everyone else. As enjoyable as sex is, it is no more necessary to our personal fulfilment than a trip to Disneyland. Personal well-being and contentment in life are best predicted by the breadth and depth of a person's social connectedness – that is, the extent to which we have close friends and confidants, friendly neighbours and supportive co-workers.
Therefore I stand by the invitation I put to the house last night: Join me in supporting a relationships revolution and so discover the full joy of sex!


OK having good social connectedness means we are fulfilled - sounds easy, so why doesnt everyone have this? Why is the world obsessed about having great sex (outside of marriage), and see it as the means of fulfillment? There are more issues here going on about sexuality, spirituality, intimacy and transcendence that need to be explored. Currently neither the world's answer of sexual freedom, nor the church's message of "be good until you're married" really answer people's desperate desire for intimacy and connectedness. That includes many in the churches too.
Ulric 29 October 2008
You cannot question the want of people to have sex outside of marriage...men are biologically polygamous and this has long been proved...
Heath 9 February 2009