You often hear this sloppy comparison, when regulating abortion is discussed. How are they different? Erectile dysfunction treatment aids reproduction, while contraception by definition thwarts reproduction. According to a traditional sexual ethics, such as you might find in Christianity,--represented most visibly by the Catholic Church--as long as the sexual act(s) are ordered to reproduction, (and the union of the spouses) aids in that process are licit. Of course, such aids can be used illicitly--like Viagra used in service to an orgy--but that's a licit means to an unjust end. On the other hand, contraception has an intention that can be just--the prevention of pregnancy--but the means thwarts the design and purpose of the sex organs, and the sexual act.
Contraceptive sex is by its very nature fundamentally opposed to the purpose of human sexuality. Moreover, anything that has sexual pleasure as the primary or sole end would be out of bounds. Does this mean that the traditional ethics is opposed to sexual pleasure? No, as long as pleasure is not an end in itself. If the design of our bodies is purposeful, then pleasure is a gift that is an incentive to "be fruitful and multiply."
I think that certain feminisms rest upon unending hostility between the sexes, so ED treatment seems to benefit men and their pleasure, and it must be opposed. Part of that unending hostility would be to deny that women have any legitimate interest in preventing ED.
Things like in vitro fertilization separate reproduction from the unity of the spouses in the marital sex act. It's in a way the opposite problem as contraception, but it's also out of bounds.
To be direct, there could be some weight to the idea that sexual "liberals"--like LGBT+ advocates and feminists--have political-cultural reasons to take an interest in each others' concerns, but each also at the extreme share the belief that one sex--whether male or female--is not necessary. I also think that the extremes of gender ideology reflect an attempt to deny the natural design of the male-female binary.
Comments