In a recent subscriber chat I was asked how I deal with the Stoics’ sex-negative approach to life.
Which confused me, because I wouldn’t characterize Stoics as disliking sex or finding it morally problematic. Or at least they don’t find it more problematic than our drives for food, resource accrual, prestige, and pain avoidance, which also have the potential to lead to bad outcomes.
So I’m going to expand on my reply here, but first, we need to cover some basics:
* Stoicism is not a religion (though there were quasi-religious conceptions about nature and the universality of reason).
* There were multiple Stoics who strayed from “orthodox” Stoic beliefs. (Here’s looking at you Aristo of Chios and Herillus of Carthage). There wasn’t one Stoic view on sex, and most shared Stoic tenets followed from or informed their famous paradox that “virtue is the only good.”
* Ancient Stoic opinions weren’t mandates from on high, but the outcome of an attempt to reason toward virtue in a complicated world. They didn’t claim infallibility. Many stressed the need to think for ourselves and not mindlessly follow convention. In fact, many ancient Stoic opinions were rebellions against the status quo of their day. They’d want us to rebel from our status quo and the ancient conclusions if we find a better path.
So what exactly did Stoics say about sex?
Just for Making Babies?
Most ancient Stoics thought having children was a natural part of life, good for us, and a way to live out the virtues in the real world. It’s a springboard from which people can hone and then spread the virtue of justice via an ever-expanding circle of concern.
But they didn’t insist Stoics have children; numerous historical Stoics didn’t have any. Zeno of Citium, Stoicism’s founder, had none, nor did Cleanthes or Chrysippus, the two subsequent scholarchs of the Stoa. Epictetus had no biological children, but adopted an orphan and raised her. It’s unclear what their sexual lives looked like. Perhaps they were voluntarily celibate.
But most Stoics didn’t have the Catholic view of sex – that it should only be practiced toward the end of reproduction. The only Stoic who explicitly says this is Munsonius Rufus, from whom only a few lectures survive.
But even he is pro-intimacy and sex within the bounds of committed relationships.
Spouses should have all thing “in common between them, and nothing peculiar or private to one or the other, not even their own bodies…this love for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful.” — Musonius Rufus, Lectures and Sayings, Lecture 13
Good unions involve mutual love, respect, companionship, and a great deal of affection, he says. Sex was absolutely part of that, and when done wisely, is a component of a virtuous life.
Without physical and emotional affection, Rufus says you end up with something like a modern loveless relationship: “they live together, yet their common interests fare badly; eventually they separate entirely or they remain together and suffer what is worse than loneliness.”
So sex is a tool that can bind two people together in virtue and affection, and should be given its due without blowing it out of proportion.
Giving Sex Its Due:
The Stoic satirist Persius left six scathing pieces lambasting the Roman elite for their follies. Being gourmands prone to overeating was a concern, but doing dumb and immoral things for sex was a close second.
Yet even Persius never says sex is bad, nor that the pleasure we find in it is an indelible stain only wiped clean via babymaking. That’s not how Stoics thought about morality or pleasure. If you can line thoughts, words, and deeds up with virtue, then they’re fine. Virtue is the ultimate filter keeping actions from straying into vice. If it fits through the virtue sieve, there’s no need to condemn it, suppress it, or be ashamed of it.
“Food should slake our hunger, drink our thirst, let lust flow where it has to.” — Seneca, Tranquility of the Mind, 9.1
I like how Seneca sets lust/sex/libido in the same category as milder drives that get free passes from puritanical types — libido qua necesse est fluat. They want to dismiss sex as an unnecessary vice, but Seneca says it’s a normal drive, while also refusing to put it on a pedestal, as modern people are prone to do.
Hunger isn’t “bad,” — it keeps us alive. Money isn’t dirty if we use it with virtue. Sleeping doesn’t mean we’re lazy, for we can’t function well without it. So sex doesn’t have to be a dirty little secret good people are ashamed of seeking and enjoying.
When Sex Goes Off The Rails
The problem is that it’s very easy for sex to be immoral.
Coercion, lies, immoderation, and caring more for your enjoyment than the good of who you’re having it with taints what might be a moral pleasure.
What about kinks? The judgement of them probably goes beyond getting consent. One way to judge them is by the dichotomy of enslavement. If a kink erodes your sovereignty over yourself, obsesses you, or makes you do things that don’t line up with your conception of virtue, there’s something wrong with it.
I live in Austin, a weird city of many subcultures. Several acquaintances are part of kink groups, going to sex parties to have their sex watched, or merely watching the sex of others.
I suspect the Stoics would draw a line here. They might say it crosses several hazy lines, actually, but perhaps most salient is the question of things taking up too much of your life and identity. Just as meals should be a healthy way to fuel our bodies without obsessing us, but might also provide pleasure, sex is in the same boat.
Short of these concerns? I don’t think Stoics would care that much.
Epictetus tells his students:
“If you do indulge [in sex], then confine yourself to what is lawful [virtuous]. Don’t make yourself tiresome, however, to those who indulge, or be over-critical, and don’t constantly call attention to the fact that you don’t behave like them.” — Epictetus, Enchiridion, 33.8
The Stoic Way Of Thinking About Sex:
Eating and drinking shouldn’t be considered entertaining ways to pass time, but natural needs the body experiences. They need to be met appropriately and moderately, but why wouldn’t we enjoy them?
Sex is the same. If we make sex appeal our entire personality, as many celebrities do, or obsess about sex and objectify the bodies of others, that’s a level of indulgence that crosses the line.
So I’d say the Stoics are sex positive in that they’re happy to give it its due. They’re just not deluded about it. An amazing orgasm won’t remake us. Sex doesn’t transcend reality, psychological hang-ups, or relationship troubles.
People make the same mistakes with spirituality. In fact, some people make orgasms into their religion. Sometimes, we need to rein ourselves in.
Is sex a human right? No. Can we live good lives without it? Sure, though many will find it challenging.
Luckily, we don’t have to.
Thanks for reading Socratic State of Mind.
If you liked this article, please like and share it, which helps more readers find my work.
