Sex on Campus

The way Georgetown students conduct sexual activity on campus is incompatible with self-respect and respect for others. According to Emmanuel Kant, self-respect means not allowing ourselves to be treated as objects used to satisfy the ends of others. Kant believes that we must take seriously the development of our talents and capacities. Respecting others means not treating others as mere means to our own ends. To respect others is to recognize people as rational beings that have things that are important to them. At Georgetown, many students engage in sexual relationships that have "no strings attached," meaning that there are no emotional ties. It is very common for students to form relationships of "friends with benefits" where people are free to engage in sexual activity with each other and whomever else they please. Sexual activity on campus does not coincide with these theories of respect because casual sex does not entail feelings of love ad compassion. Partners view each other with eyes of lust, and as objects used only for pleasures. With supporting evidence, the use of the Kantian argument, and objections to my argument, I will show that sexual activity on Georgetown's campus is a violation of self-respect for others.

In Kant's argument, he discusses the categorical imperative which is a test that proves whether actions are moral. Within the categorical imperative is the humanity formulation. Kant writes, "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only [mere means] (p. 137)." This formulation states that all human beings should be treated as persons who have dignity and absolute value. Kant is stating that humans are rational beings that are irreplaceable and humans, unlike everything else, do not have conditional worth. Sexual activity on campus violates the humanity formulation because casual sex constitutes treating other human beings as ends in themselves. People become objects to be used as their partner wants them to be used. This shows that the two parties lack respect for themselves because they are allowing themselves to be treated as mere objects. They are not showing that they are worth a relationship of love, but only good enough to be viewed as objects.

Some would argue that people engaged in casual sex relationships still maintain their dignity and absolute value. The fact that they are willing to give away a part of themselves for the physical and emotional betterment of another person, shows that they see the other person as having dignity. By this, I mean that they respect the fact that the other person is irreplaceable. They view the other person highly enough to put effort into satisfying that individual's needs. For instance, I had one friend on campus who was involved with a young man who did not want a relationship, but still needed physical satisfaction. Because my friend respected him and his needs, along with her own, she agreed to the relationship. They had a symbiotic relationship where they fed off of each other for physical pleasure. They had a "no strings attached" relationship, but were still able to maintain respect or each other and themselves because they knew that they were both content with the pleasure they derived from the relationship.

Casual sex on campus is equivalent to treating people as sex objects. Kant states that "Amongst our inclinations there is one which is directed towards other human beings. They themselves, and not their work and services, are its objects of enjoyment ("Duties Toward the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse" 162)," meaning that sexual inclinations are directed at the person themselves and are especially morally complicated because they have human beings themselves as their objects. On Georgetown's campus, it is not uncommon for two individuals to "hook up", or engage in sexual intercourse, after a party. These are usually one-night stands where, at most times, the two individuals do not even know each other's last names. Afterwards, the two students go their separate ways and do not meet with each other again. This is a failure of both self-respect and respect for one another because the two individuals are allowing themselves to be used as objects of satisfaction. They are also aware of the fact that their mate is not gaining any respect for them. In fact, in situations such as one-night stands, respect is completely lost. Also, one-night stands fail to show respect for others because the individual is not viewing their partner as a rational human being with feelings. They become a method of temporal enjoyment.

An objection to this argument would be that not all individuals involved in relationships of casual sex view their mates as mere objects. Some people appreciate the fact that they have someone whom they can share an intimate relationship with, without being hurt in the process. Many students on Georgetown's campus do not desire a relationship where they must sacrifice their hearts to another person. Yet, this does not mean that they must fail to satiate their carnal desires. Also, individuals do not view themselves as mere objects because they are satisfying the needs of others. They view themselves as important to the well-being of another person. Because both parties do not view themselves as sexual objects, they are not violating their sel-respect or respect for others. In their eyes, they still hold importance in achieving their own well-being and that of others.

The way in which Georgetown students conduct sexual activity is not respectful sex. In Kantian terms, respectful sex is only that within marriage. It is the only venue for "morally safe" sex. A marriage contract requires individuals to treat their sexual partners as ends in themselves. All sex outside of marriage turns people into objects because of the lack of deep feelings in the relationship. Kant believes that:

"In the kingdom of ends everything has either [price] or dignity. Whatever has a [price] can be replaced by something else which is equivalent; whatever, on the other hand, is above all [price], and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity" (138).

He is saving that all human beings have dignity and not price. Our value is disproportionate and cannot be traded. This belief is incompatible with those of casual sex because when we engage in such relationships we are not thinking of ourselves or others as having dignity. For example, there are times when sex on campus results in unprotected sex. This is very unwise and harmful because unprotected sex makes students, and all people, susceptible to unwanted and fatal diseases. By students placing

...