Against diseases here the strongest fence/Is the defensive vertue, Abstinence. ~ Robert Herrick, "Abstinence"

I find William Saletan of Slate entertaining. He tends not to have a cohesive philosophy or worldview, instead picking and choosing as he goes along without much care for whether he contradicts himself. I find this habit slightly endearing in him (rather than infuriating, maybe because I don’t have to argue with him?).

Either way, Saletan wrote this piece the other day about those Northwest Airline pilots that fell asleep at the wheel and overflew St. Paul, MN, by 150 miles. In the article he is making the case that the airline industry should let their pilots sleep more, or at least make realistic guidelines so they can catch a few winks in the cockpit without endangering the lives of their passengers and overflying major U.S. cities by 150 miles. Ok, so far I’m on board, Mr. Saletan, but why should they do this?

"[This] brings me to sex.

I know: Not everything is about sex. But bear with me.

When I was in college, I loved studying philosophy. If I were put in charge of a philosophy class for a day, I'd break the students into groups of three and give them the following problem to work out: Which is more important—food, sleep, or sex?

The exercise is really about what "important" means. But my instinct is to go with sleep, on the grounds that if you try to avoid all three, sleep is the one that will overtake you first. By that standard, it's the one you need most.

If that's true—and if we know that it's unreasonable and dangerous to insist that people abstain from sex—then isn't it stupid to expect them to abstain from sleep?

When it comes to sex, most of us understand that we can't defeat nature. Today's teenagers may be emotionally unprepared for sex, but they'll do it anyway, just as we did. If we deny them any outlet, they'll just do it in secret and without protection.

Most of us have come to a similar understanding about food. If you try too hard to deny your body's urges, you'll end up cheating, bingeing, and eating junk.

Why not extend this practicality to sleep?" (his hyperlinks, click at your own risk)

Hang on, wait a minute, hold up one second. What? “We know that it's unreasonable and dangerous to insist that people abstain from sex…” Dangerous? Like how? Like sixteen year old boys might spontaneously combust out of sexual frustration? Because people die without food and they go insane without sleep. And without sex...oh, yeah, nothing happens. It’s considered torture to withhold food and sleep from prisoners, is it torture to withhold sex from them?

“When it comes to sex, most of us understand that we can't defeat nature.” Ah, yes, nature. Putting aside for a moment the Christian understanding of nature as bent, and specifically our nature as really, really bent and indomitable without Christ, I doubt Saletan truly believes “we can’t defeat nature.” I mean, he doesn’t kill or wound his rivals over a mate or resources. He doesn't urinate on whatever bush/fire hydrant/car tire he happens to be near whenever nature calls. But I suppose that’s the beauty of not needing to be consistent.

But here I am, arguing on his terms. What I should say is, Mr. Saletan, I reject the premise that sex is on the same level of biological necessity as food and sleep. Millions of people have abstained from sex for some part of their lives and survived it. In fact, I, Theophil Q. Jones, abstained from sex for twenty years. Am I in danger?!?!?

You’re being silly, Mr. Saletan. Stop being silly.