Having Morally Appropriate Sex in Stoicism

In partnership with

One thing that always sells, or so they tell me, is sex. So, in an attempt to sell you this free publication, I’m writing about sex this week. Not the mechanics of it, thank goodness, but whether or not sex is mostly taboo in Stoicism.

Before I continue, I’d like to ask a favor of you.

At the end of this edition you’ll be greeted with the ability to send me your writing suggestions — and I’d really appreciate it if you sent me some. Coming up with ideas every week isn’t easy, and your ideas will help!

Are Stoic’s meant to abstain from sex?

Let’s start with a few quotes from a Roman Stoic called Musonius Rufus.

I warn you, before you read them, you might find them off-putting. If you do, I insist you read them anyway — and thoroughly. Don’t merely skim.

Musonius says a lot of things here that most contemporary readers would find problematic — let’s call them out quickly:

1. There seems to be a somewhat arbitrary focus on the amount of sex one is having, and another, separate, focus on the enjoyment of sex for sex’s own sake.
   

2. That sex outside of marriage is wrong and, separately, that any sex (whether within marriage or not) is only lawful (by which Musonius means naturally lawful; as in “in alignment with nature”) when it is done with the specific intention of having children.
   

3. That homosexuality is “monstrous” and against nature.
   

4. That sex with, for lack of a friendlier word, prostitutes is a moral wrong.
   

5. That no one with self-restraint (temperance) would even think of having sex with a “free woman” who was “apart from marriage” (this means freed female slaves).

Let’s also identify the things which most contemporary readers would agree with:

1. We shouldn’t be secretly juggling multiple lovers and/or having affairs.
   

2. We shouldn’t endeavour to turn people from their spouses in order to bed them.
   

3. We shouldn’t be sexually subjugating our staff (“maidservants”) or co-workers.

Musonius is a cultural Roman, while the philosophy he professes to be teaching is not. Stoicism is a Greek philosophy, not a Roman one. In the discourses of Musonius, we can make out an attitude toward (and concerning) sex that we would be unable to make out in the texts of Stoicism’s Greek founder and various Scholarchs.

Consider this from Zeno of Citium:

Zeno and Musonius couldn’t have had more different views on the purpose, role, or execution of sex. Musonius had a very “sex is sacred” outlook that required sex to happen only within the confines of marriage, and only with very specific ends in mind. The enjoyability of sex, for Musonius, seems to have been little more than a pleasant byproduct and certainly not, in any way, important or the reason people should have sex.

Zeno, on the other hand, viewed sex as an expression of friendship & love, and, as a result, of a virtuous character.

Zeno also supported the idea of free love, and positively regarded sexual preferences which were non-hetero or non-normative (homosexuality, of course, but also love of prostitutes). It is also well-recorded that Zeno rarely kept the company of women (wink wink, nudge nudge) and that his favourite student was also his closest lover (Persaeus of Citium, a man).

Musonius, a Roman Stoic living more than 300 years after Stoicism’s founding, would have us believe that Stoics see sex, strictly, as a marital duty between men and women — a duty that should only be carried out with the intention of propagating the human species.

Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, would have us believe that Stoics see sex as an expression of natural love and friendship — not a duty, but as an indifferent pursuit that, when carried out for reasons of love and friendship, could be a virtuous act regardless of who it was with.

Receive Honest News Today

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Sign up today!

What’s the right way to parse these contradicting views from Greek and Roman Stoics? And how should contemporary Stoics view sex?

Before answering these questions, we must all be clear on one thing (at least): the differences between Rome and Greece (as countries) do not matter much here.

Undoubtedly, cultural and societal norms play a part in shaping the personalities and outlooks of the individuals subjected to them. To say that Roman-ness had no impact on Musonius’s thinking (or that of any other Roman Stoic), would be dishonest. Equally dishonest would be to say that Greek-ness had no impact on Zeno’s thinking. However, Stoics worked hard to ensure their thinking wasn’t dimmed by their social and geographic influences.

The root of these contradictions, then, cannot be, merely, that Rome is Rome and Greece is Greece (as has been said by many people, before, about, specifically, the differences in each country’s views on sex and intimacy).

Instead, they must come down to a fundamental difference in just one thing…

Greek Stoics understood nature (and “natural law”) differently than their Roman counterparts.

I don’t feel the Ancient Roman Stoics (and I’m talking about the proper Roman philosophers and teachers of Stoicism) were particularly “good” teachers (or students) of Stoicism if the Stoicism they believed themselves to be adhering to (and propagating through their teaching) was Zeno’s Stoicism.

I think Roman Stoicism was a malformed, and thus different version of the philosophical tradition it believed it was perpetuating.

Zeno’s “Republic”, his formal challenge to Plato’s identically titled work, put forward his own idea of “the perfect republic” — and that republic was lawless. Lawless, as all citizens and leaders would be sages in this perfect republic, because there’d be no reason for laws or institutions of moral enforcement.

Zeno’s Stoicism, then, mirrored Zeno’s view of the natural world.

In the natural world, every creature abides by the Logos of the Cosmos — by Nature (capital “N”) — and by its own nature (lowercase “n”). The non-human, animal citizens of a forest do not require something like a Supreme Court Justice, nor do they need the institution of marriage or some moral code that tells them when sex is appropriate. Animals (non-human ones) simply live in accordance.

Stoics aim to do this — to live in accordance with Nature.

A Stoic’s choices are made with the intention that those choices be in alignment with Nature, nature, human nature, and their individual nature.

That’s four different “natures” a Stoic is trying to live in accordance with!

What’s the answer, then? How are Stoics meant to think about sex and engage in sexual activity?

We’ve got to work from the bottom up (no puns intended) 🫠 

Individual nature > human nature > nature > Nature.

We cannot, as Stoics, deny either our individual or human natures. Our individual nature is comprised of where we live, what we gravitate toward, things we enjoy, natural skills we are born with, our inclinations, and things like this. In regards to sex, then, we are allowed a preference in who we pursue, when we’d like to have sex with those people (assuming mutual consent, of course), and the manner in which that sex is had (again, assuming mutual consent).

We should then consider “human nature.”

Human nature, according to the Greek Stoics, requires not that our sexual activities be “for specific ends” (like bringing about children) or “within only certain context” (like marriage), but that it be an action undertaken with love, friendship, and service to the Cosmopolis in mind. Of course, every individual Stoic is free to reason through the “how” of these requirements on their own and no other Stoic can judge the “Stoicness” of their reasoning as no Stoic can know the hegemonikon of any other Stoic.

Next we consider “nature.”

What is natural for human sex? If we look to nature we can find sex for pleasure (such as among dolphins and chimpanzees), and we can find non-hetero sex for pleasure and/or love (such as among penguins, elephants, and giraffes). Certainly we cannot find many examples I could come up with, but, the only restrictions I could see Zeno applying would be those that restricted sexual activities which actively and directly hurt others, were undertaken out of hate, or which somehow brought ruin to the Cosmopolis — and I think your sexual proclivities would have to be pretty wild in order to “bring ruin.”

Lastly, we must consider Nature (the Cosmos, God).

If we think it’d be a real challenge to bring ruin to the Cosmopolis with the goings on of our naughty bits, imagine the challenge in dreaming up the sort of sex required to work against reality at the cosmic level — it would have to actively work against the causal chain.

And that, I’m sorry to say, as much as saying so might be dashing to bits the hopes of those among us dreaming of a sexual prowess capable of producing a, to quote Marven the Martian, “Earth-shattering kaboom”, is impossible.

So, the final word is…

No matter the who, what, where, why, and/or how of your sexual activities, so long as they align with what you reason to be human nature, your own nature, and nature — and so long as it’s not hurting the Cosmopolis or ripping the Cosmos apart at the seams — it’s a-okay as far as Greek Stoicism is concerned.

As for Roman Stoicism? Well, Roman Stoicism seems to want us to understand “moral” sex as being, strictly, heterosexual sex occurring within the institution of marriage and which is only undertaken for the sake of reproduction.

Your choice is up to you, but one thing is not up to you: how others choose to regard and frame their idea of morally acceptable sex.

Regardless of your flavour of Stoicism (Roman or Greek), at least one thing remains the same: getting upset about (or morally indignant about) that which we cannot choose is vicious and, therefore, un-Stoic. If your reasoning is just — which only you can determine, ultimately — then you’re good. 

Thanks for reading.