At an all-girl dinner party for a bride-to-be recently, the conversation inevitability turned to sex.

There were the routine questions that betray the more minor anxieties that surround matters sexual, such as ‘How much is normal?’. The answers that ensued did much, it seems, to reassure those with busy schedules who try to simultaneously juggle multiple balls (excuse the pun) and maintain a satisfying sex life.

Then there was the ‘What is normal and what is deviant’ type questions. Threesomes, sex in public, sex toys and porn were the extent of the activities and items that constitute slightly errant sexual behaviour for this group of 30-something, middle-class women whose views fall somewhere midway between conservative and liberal.

Threesomes and sex in public were considered wild but tantalizing by everyone around the table, but the use of pornography and sex toys divided the group.

There was no moral attachment to the issue of using sex toys. Whilst some felt that vibrators enhance the experience for women and are a crucual component of a fulfilling sexual encounter, others believed that the intensity of stimulation provided by a vibrator made sex without toys disappointing by comparison.

The conclusion reached by those holding the latter view was, surprisingly, that vibrators should therefore never be used. Using a vibrator during sex is so good, they argued, that normal sex just doesn’t compare. Rather than spoil a woman with great sex, eliminate the toy and let the woman accept mediocre sex.

This is strange logic indeed. If the means to a quality experience is available and if a quality experience is desired, it makes no sense to deny the means on the basis that it succeeds. Secondly, if sex without the use of a vibrator is really that dull, then the solution is to work on one’s sex life not to resign to the dullness. If a vibrator aids in making one’s sex life less dull, why on earth would someone who on one hand complains of dullness and on the other praises the virtues of the vibrator, choose not to utilize it?

The argument smacks of self-effacement. Perhaps there remain tendrils of some pre-sexual revolution, faintly misogynistic, ascetic, self-abasing Judeo-Christian mentality picked up in chuildhood, in all of this. If this is true, then the criticism falls strongly on those women who have done nothing to examine the beliefs to which they were exposed in childhood and who continue to cling to unworthy but familiar notions. It is not okay that these modern, western women are comfortable with the idea that sexual pleasure for a women is a negligible ideal.

As for the issue of pornography some women said that they watched porn with their husbands with the specific intention of spicing up their sex lives whenever they were feeling sexually humdrum. No-one admitted to watching porn for its own sake, or to watching it by themselves without their husbands. Watching porn was, they implied, a male thing – perhaps even a need that men (but apparently not women) have. Better, they argued, to watch it with them than to have them watch it alone or with their male buddies.

The consensus seemed to be that since porn exists, and since men will watch it whether or not you want them to, porn should be used only to fulfill a very specific function: marriage strengthening. Watching porn together as a couple has, they said, two benefits: (1) it reduces relationship deception in that the woman has access to what might otherwise have been secreted away, (2) it may boost the couple’s sexual chemistry.

Well and good. Honesty and sexual fireworks in a relationship are obviously good things. What is not so good about the argument above is the underlying feeling that watching porn constitutes some kind of personal betrayal and this introduces the moral element that the issue of sex toys failed to produce.

Why are these women so anxious to participate in their husband’s porn-viewing? Their primary reason is not that they actually desire to watch porn themselves, but because they desire to be involved in an activity indulged in by their husbands. What do they think will happen if he is allowed to watch it by himself? All of these women are in stable relationships or marriages which have passed at least the seven-year mark. Do they really believe that the simple act of looking at sexually explicit images on a screen can undermine a relationship which has already proven itself by weathering countless storms of a much more serious nature? Surely not.

What is probably closer to the truth is the motivation behind what was expressed by the bride-to-be on the subject of men attending strip clubs. ‘Why’, she asked, ‘would my fiance need to go to a strip club when he has me?’ (Coming from her, the question is particularly pertinent: she is a tall, blonde, gorgeous, long-limbed cabaret dancer.)

The same question could be directed at the issue of men watching pornography: ‘Why would a man who has ready access to sex in the form of his lovely wife still require additional sexual stimulation in the form of watching porn?’

The reactions which the thought of their husbands watching porn and attending strip clubs produced in these women varied from resignedly accepting (with conditions attached) to outraged. Somehow these activities are considered to be just ‘not right’.

It’s hard to see how this assignation of morality can be justified. If a couple has chosen to be sexually exclusive and if there is no violation of that decision, then what objection can there be to activities which stimulate one’s sexuality but do not endanger one’s commitment to monogamy? If going to strip clubs and watching porn (whether alone or with one’ partner) are sexually exciting activities which do not involve infidelity, then how are they different to the sexually exciting use of sex toys (whether alone or with one’s partner)? Why does one give rise to moralizing and the other does not?

The truth is that this is about vanity. We would like our men to be so enamoured of us alone that they are rendered completely incapable of perceving the sexual presence of anyone else. This is unbelievably childish. It is like wishing that your partner would fail to see people with brown eyes simply because you would like him to believe that yours are the only brown eyes in the entire world.

Rather than thinking through their logic, these women chose to remain rooted in a hand-me-down morality which rationalizes an argument from vanity. A sprinkling of sound reasoning and a pinch of rigorous thinking on these matters would reveal to these women the flimsy basis of their arguments.

This is particularly true for the topic to which the dinner conversation next turned.

The bride-to-be was asked if she wanted to start a family. Answering in the affirmative she added that the desire was potentially hampered by some possible fertility concerns. She was then told that having a child would happen ‘if it was meant to be’. Everyone around the table nodded at this wisdom.

Actually, no. She would have a child if the medical issues resolved. This is not a matter of destiny but biology. If she did not manage to conceive ‘naturally’ (I use the word with caution) then her chances of having a child would depend on the odds of success of any fertility treatment. Although it may be more comforting to leave the issue to destiny, in truth, it is a matter of statistical probability over which we have some, but (in these cases) often very little control.

The belief in destiny (or ‘teleological determinisn’, a phrase coined by Tauriq Moosa) is intertwined with numerous other problematic beliefs. To believe that one has a destiny is to believe that one came into existence for a purpose. This implies several things: (1) there exists a Realm of Purposes which determines our daily experience, (2) there exists some sort of Great Architect of Purposes who pre-plans every individual’s specific purposes, (3) an individul’s free will is constrained by his greater purpose and (4) that the universe itself is somehow geared to meet these purposes. This would be the extent of Teleological Determinism.

Once one accepts these premises, however, there is nothing stopping one from accepting the sinister idea that the universe exists to enable one to meet one’s personal goals.

Notions such as the Law of Attraction would have one believe, for example, that because the universe aligns itself to one’s desires, one can attract to oneself the child one wishes to conceive. Despite the facts of medical infertility, conception will occur, by this logic, if one has a strong enough desire to conceive. This is an extremely damaging idea for, conversely, one’s inability to conceive is explained by virtue of the fact that one did not have a strong enough desire to conceive.

This is patently nonsense. Yet, it is what many people believe. If the belief in destiny started out as comforting, mostly harmless delusion, the conclusions are anything but comforting and harmless. For an excellent article exploring these issues in depth, see here.

I wonder if the women around the dinner table that night will ever question the assumptions they so blithely made around sex toys, porn, strip clubs and destiny. I wonder, if they do begin to question, how the resultant changes in mentality will affect their lives. Perhaps the changes will be minute. Perhaps their husbands will suddenly find they have earned more trust from wives who are a little less vain. Perhaps the realization that having a child or not is not a matter of how closely one is aligned to one’s destiny, or of how capable one is of merely desiring something (a life!) into existence, will result in less angst and more clarity of thought and deed.

Even if the changes in these cases are only small, the benefits that come with acquiring the tools and the will to critically examine one’s general beliefs and values are enormous.