In a previous TOB Tuesday post I pointed out the beginning of a three part series of columns over at Catholic Exchange in which Dale O’Leary attempts to answer the challenge posed to traditional sexual morality by the “Sexual Revolutionaries” of the last thirty years. In part one he reviewed the examination of the fundamentally anti-person Sexual Revolution made by John Paul II in his book Love and Responsibility, a precursor to his Theology of the Body. This revolution’s utilitarian view of marriage and sexual relations has dehumanized the male/female relationship, causing men and women to see and treat each other as objects of their own selfish, sexual gratification. Not only that, but by rejecting and attempting to prevent the natural act of procreation associated with sexual activity, it has lead to the dehumanization of the unborn child, the view of fertility and pregnancy as some kind of abnormal medical condition and the acceptance of murder in the name of “reproductive rights” and sexual “freedom.”

Now, in part two, O’Leary examines the structure of a utilitarian relationship, its inevitable damage and the reaction of those who feel used.

Sexual Revolution is founded on a Utilitarian Sexual Contract which, while rarely explicitly spelled out, can be summarized as follows:

I can use you as a sex object. I may at some point want to share housing with you or even enter into a marriage and decide to conceive a child, but our relationship will always be contingent on your remaining useful to me by supplying me with sexual and other pleasures. If the discomfort I feel is greater than the pleasure I gain from this relationship, I am free to terminate the relationship unilaterally. I will let you use me as a sex object, provided you gain my explicit consent before each encounter. We will negotiate the safe-sex practices to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I understand that you are under no obligation to continue the relationship should your discomfort be greater than your pleasure.

The acceptance of Utilitarian sexual ethic is so pervasive that many young men and women do not recognize its fundamental immorality. Date rape trials and sexual harassment law suits hinge not on whether or not one person has been used as a sexual object — it is assumed he or she has — but on whether consent was obtained and the use was terminated on demand.

Modern women and men consider themselves liberated from the need to conceal their motives. No one is supposed to feel guilty for using another person. On the other hand, under the Utilitarian sexual ethic, those who expect commitment or fail to allow the other person to exit the relationship without recrimination may find themselves condemned. If they protest, they are told to “get over it.”

Read more and stay tuned for part three!