# Sexual Morality: The Bounds of Sexual Expression

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Copyright © 1995 by The Association for Bahá'í Studies - Australia
> 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> Society's burgeoning preoccupation with sex and unbridled
> permissiveness in its expression affronts the sacredness of the institution of marriage,
> which, for Bahá'ís, constitutes the very foundation of social life. According to
> Bahá'í law the preservation of its sacredness requires the abstinence of sex before
> marriage, and sexual exclusivity between spouses after marriage. These bounds are
> predicated on the belief that the only legitimate use of the sex instinct is in marriage.
> It is argued, in this paper, that both premarital and extramarital sex fail to give the
> same degree of attention to the preservation of trust as does the contraction of marriage.
> This thesis is developed using the methodology of moral reasoning from a deontological
> point of view. 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> How ought we view sex or, for the want of a better expression, put it
> into perspective in our lives? Is it a force whose end is the production of physical
> pleasure?, the procreation of life? Or is it inextricably linked to cultural expressions
> of love and affection?, a sacred act, constituting the epitome of intimacy, performed only
> between married couples? All of these are valid conceptions of the significance of sex in
> our every-day lives. However, I posit that the value ascribed to each of them is
> contingent on the degree to which we value other things. This will invariably mould our
> sexual perspective, and as such, define the bounds of sexual expression. 
> 
> 
> 
> In the West it is legal for consenting adults - whether or not either
> of them is married to another - to engage in sexual intercourse. By legal I mean not
> sanctionable by the law. Only when the act of sexual intercourse involves a physical
> violation of individual rights (namely the right to bodily security) is it punishable by
> law (the most obvious example being rape). This is in stark contrast to Bahá'í law
> which, in the absence of any concomitant physical violation of individual rights, also
> imposes penalties on those who engage in mutual premarital or extramarital sex and their
> respective partner(s). This is predicated on the belief that the only legitimate use of
> the sex instinct is in marriage (Lights, 1988).
> 
> 
> 
> Laws primarily serve to preserve what we as a society value. They
> reflect our morals, ie. what we believe to be right and wrong. It is in this connection
> that the Bahá'í law regarding marriage canalises the value given to it by
> Bahá'u'lláh. He writes:
> 
> "And when He desired to manifest grace and beneficence to men, and
> to set the world in order, He revealed observances and created laws; among them He
> established the law of marriage, made it as a fortress for well-being and salvation, and
> enjoined it upon us in that which was sent down out of the heaven of sanctity in His Most
> Holy Book" (Bahá'í Prayers 1991).
> 
> 
> 
> The Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith in explicating the conception
> and establishment of this institution by Bahá'u'lláh succinctly states that it
> is "...of vital social importance, constituting as it does the very foundation of
> social life" (Lights, 1988); and that..."its chief and sacred purpose
> [is] the perpetuation of the human race" (Lights, 1988). He furthermore
> affirms that..."while [it gives] due importance to the physical aspect of marital
> union considers it as subordinate to the moral and spiritual purposes and functions with
> which it has been invested by an All-Wise and loving Providence" (Lights,
> 1988). The veracity of this is, at a later date, emphasised yet again. He categorically
> states: "that two people should live their lives in love and harmony is of far
> greater importance than that they should be consumed with passion for each other" (Bahá'í
> Marriage, 1983).
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes sex within the above context of the purpose and nature of
> the institution of marriage morally right?. Or, conversely, what makes sex outside of this
> context morally wrong? More specifically, what makes premarital and extramarital sex
> morally wrong? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> II
> 
> Many advocates of premarital sex argue its legitimacy on the grounds
> that it conforms to the law of nature, ie it is the natural thing to do. Yet natural acts,
> although they end in the satisfaction of a physiological or psychological need, are not
> always morally right: torture and rape are natural acts in the sense that they are part of
> human nature, yet they are deemed morally wrong (Goods, 1975).
> 
> 
> 
> In deeming such actions as being morally wrong implies that we should
> not do them, which is tantamount to the recognition of a need to accept limits. In
> relation to the environment we have already realised the necessity of accepting some kind
> of limit in our interaction with it; if we are to prevent the destruction of the natural
> systems that regenerate this world. The imposition of limits confers worth on these
> natural systems. In this connection natural acts such as torture are morally wrong They
> de-value human worth. They treat persons as a mere means, ie not mattering in themselves. 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws of nature can be defined in two senses: scientific and ethical.
> "In the scientific sense, a law of nature is a descriptive principle; it is a
> universal generalisation describing how all entities of a certain kind do in fact
> act....In the ethical sense, a law of nature is a normative principle. It is a universal
> generalisation setting up an ideal of how all agents ought to act" (Morals,
> 1975).
> 
> 
> 
> Ethical principles set the bounds of propriety and give preservation to
> human worth; whereas scientific laws reflect how entities behave. Is there a correlation
> between scientific laws and ethical principles?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the following psychological definition of aggression, a human
> disposition. "The most common definition proposed that aggression is a behaviour that
> aims at inflicting injury or pain on other" (Aggression, 1970). As it is
> injurious to others it is condemned by society thus rendering it morally wrong. In making
> a moral judgement, such as this, society appeals to its ethical principles. However, how
> ought we regard actions that, although not directly de-valuing worth of persons, relegate
> other less tangible things that we value? 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the following comment regarding virtues: "many virtues
> only count as such when they are attended by certain other virtues" (Goods,
> 1983). For example lying is morally reprehensible because we value truthfulness. Thus, an
> action is as morally right or, if you will, virtuous insofar as it supports the things
> that we in society value.
> 
> Natural acts aim solely at the satisfaction of a physiological need.
> Sex in this context aims solely at satisfying the human sex drive, the value of which is
> recognised by Bahá'í law; insofar as it regards its proper use as being the natural
> right of every individual, for which purpose the institution of marriage has been
> established (Lights, 1988). Aside from its procreative significance, how does
> constraining sex to marriage make it proper? I conjecture that it is related to the degree
> to which it gives attention to the preservation of trust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> III
> 
> Sexual intercourse provides a means of expressing love and affection
> towards another human being. The expression of love and affection are inestimably valued
> in society, surely sex gives attention to the value conferred upon them.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it does, but is it not possible that in doing so it fails to
> give adequate attention to the preservation of trust? I will consider this in view of
> premarital sex, and in the next section in view of extramarital sex.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage according to Bahá'í Law is the legal contraction of the
> physical and spiritual union between a man and a women. This union is predicated on the
> "commitment of the two parties one to the other, and their mutual attachment of mind
> and heart" (Selections, 1978). They - in reciting the marriage vows: "We will
> all, verily, abide by the will of God" (Kitáb-i-Aqdas, 1992) - pledge
> obedience to the Will of God, which in this instance is the contraction of their marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this sense Marriage is a divine contract binding two people
> together. This generates a feeling of security for both parties that their feelings of
> love and affection will be reciprocated by the other and vice versa. The feeling of
> security occurs as a result of the commitment they made to each other, which resulted in
> the contraction of their marriage. The pivot of this feeling of security is trust : faith
> in the belief that they will honour such a commitment - this forms the basis of their
> marital union.
> 
> 
> 
> Premarital sex often causes one of the partners to be lulled into a
> false sense of security, even if they engage in it to express their love for one another.
> Imagine that two consenting adults engage in premarital sex, to express the mutual love
> that they have for each other, on a regular basis; and that after some time one of them
> (for whatever reasons) falls out of love with the other, and decides to pursue other
> relationships. This person, regardless of the other's feelings toward them, is not
> obligated to stay in that relationship as together they made no such commitment.
> 
> It is "commitment [that] generates a sense of responsibility which
> provides stable trust through fluctuations in temperament....[It] is not sufficient to
> maintain love, but it adds an additional motive for not succumbing to, much less seeking
> out, temptations that threaten love" (Love's Constancy, 1993).
> 
> 
> 
> The mere act of sexual intercourse, even when it is an expression of
> love, cannot generate the same sense of responsibility that a lifelong commitment does;
> which gives attention to the preservation of trust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IV
> 
> Marriage, as argued previously, gives attention to the preservation of
> trust. Extramarital sex undermines this on two accounts. 
> 
> Firstly, it is in breech of the initial commitment to one's
> spouse.
> 
> Secondly, it, as in the case of premarital sex, is unattended by any
> lifelong commitment between the adulterous spouse and the extramarital partner. For it to
> do so would require that they be married, which is not permissible according to
> Bahá'í Law:
> 
> In addition to its procreative significance, which (as previously
> stated) is "its chief and sacred purpose", sex in Bahá'í-marriage, viewed
> in light of the preceding arguments, is an expression of a love that is sustained and held
> together by trust. At best sexual intercourse outside of this context is not an expression
> of this kind of love, ie. one held together by trust derived from a life-long commitment. 
> 
> 
> 
> This life-long commitment can be revoked - divorce, though strongly
> discouraged, is permissible according to Bahá'í Law. This provision, however, does
> not vitiate the institution of marriage as its legitimacy is founded upon irreconcilable
> antipathy between both partners. This ensures that marriage maintains a stable framework
> that promotes and fosters unity and harmony. 
> 
> 
> 
> Constraining sex to marriage amounts to strengthening and promoting the
> virtue of trust. The degree of stability in any form of interaction between persons is
> contingent on the extent to which they can trust each other. The value of this is exalted
> by Bahá'u'lláh. He states: "trustworthiness is the greatest portal
> leading unto the tranquillity and security of the people. In truth the stability of every
> affair hath depended and doth depend upon it" (Tablets, 1988).
> 
> 
> 
> References
> 
> 
>   1. Wellman, C. Morals and Ethics, Scott, Forman and Company,
>   1975.
>   2. Ervin, S. & Lane, C. "Aggression", in C. Costello (ed.),
>   Symptoms of Psychopathology: A Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, Inc 1970.
>   3. Effendi, S. in H. Hornby (ed.) Lights of Guidance 2nd ed
>   Copyright Bahá'í Publishing Trust: New Delhi 1988.
>   4. Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'í Prayers, U.S., 1991,
>   Bahá'í Publishing Trust: Wilmette, Illinois.
>   5. ‘Abdu'l-Bahá', Selection from the Writings of
>   ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í Publishing Trust Haifa 1978.
>   6. Martin, M. "Love's Constancy", Philosophy 68
>   (1993).
>   7. Slote, M. "Goods and Virtues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)
>   cited in Loves Constancy.
>   8. Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh,
>   Bahá'í Publishing Trust: Wilmette, Illinios.
>   9. Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá'í
>   Publishing Trust: Wilmette, Illinios.
>   10. Anon, Bahá'í Marriage and Family Life, copyright 1983
>   National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Canada.
>
> — *Sexual Morality: The Bounds of Sexual Expression (Used by permission of the curator)*