Both Elliston and Stewart present thought provoking arguments: Elliston views noncommittal sex as promiscuity which encourages freedom from emotional commitment and allows the achievement of enhanced sexual experiences in the social matrix of human interaction (Elliston. 148) while Stewart views noncommittal sex as junk sex; an act which devalues higher values such as love, self-knowledge, self-esteem and more by making the experience a mere physical tension release rather than something meaningful (Stewart. 146). However, I will provide criticisms for both arguments, beginning with Elliston. Elliston argues that homosexuals are not necessarily promiscuous because of the commitment their sacrifices signify against the Western norm (Elliston …show more content…
Stewart argues that junk sex is solely obtained for social status but he neglects the possibility that adults who are not ready for commitments due to various reasons (emotional, social, financial, psychological, etc.) may partake in meaningless sex to feel free and achieve a basic human right which to them may be of higher value than commitment. Additionally, if the second formulation of the categorical imperative states that a person must respect themselves, then their value of freedom and choosing not to commit can be their way of maintaining self-respect (Stewart.146). Thus, Stewart’s entire argument of “meaningful sex” loses merit as he attempts to devalue promiscuity but does not address that promiscuity can also entail a higher value (freedom) to some people. Moreover, Stewart argues the risk that some people who engage in junk sex might lose their capacity to desire meaningful sex or become addicted to junk sex is high for those people who use promiscuity as an excuse to exhibit narcissistic behavior (Stewart.146). Those who gain a sense of superiority, fame, power, admiration, awards, and more may never want to stop pursuing noncommittal sex and may go against morally right behavior to consistently obtain junk sex through lying,