Contributing to the common good through sexual relationship choices

Through making a simple choice in the area of sexual relationships a significant proportion of the world's population mutually benefits themselves and the rest of society in incalculable ways. There is no need for a scientific breakthrough or massive spending. It is simply a matter of choice. We call it the One Pattern.

But the common good to society through the prevalence of this choice is being steadily eroded. Other choices and patterns vie for equal recognition and freedom of action. A developing example of this threat is organisations aiming to legitimise, normalise and decriminalise pedophilia and its various forms. 

The trajectory of developments in these areas does not always have to be downwards. Imagine if the anti-smoking campaigns of recent decades had been waged sixty years ago?

One Unique Pattern

One unique pattern of sexual relationship is uniquely, universally, unequivocally legitimate.  It therefore deserves to be uniquely privileged in our society and laws.  

  • Consensual sexual relationship between
  • one adult man and one adult woman
  • who are not biologically closely related and
  • who have voluntarily entered into an
  • exclusive and mutual
  • lifelong commitment that is
  • formalised by a binding agreement.

Romantic relationships which are capable of developing into this pattern of sexual relationship are similarly unique.

How is it established that a pattern of sexual relationships is uniquely good compared to other alternatives?  By applying this litmus test:  If all sexual relationships in the world conformed to that single pattern what would be the result?

Why One?

There are some very simple reasons why one pattern of sexual relationship stands alone above all others.

The boundary conditions litmus test

A simple litmus test to compare competing advocated behaviours or lifestyles is to ask of each:

a) What if everyone in the world conducted themselves in this way?

b) What if no-one in the world conducted themselves in this way?

For example, obviously if all sexual relationships in the world were according to the One-Pattern Principle then sexually transmitted infections would be wiped out overnight. The world would be a better place.  Other patterns can be tested and compared by applying the same questions.  

The One Pattern has no equals.

Personal responsibility

Biological predisposition, no matter how rigorously demonstrated, doesn't inherently legitimise or justify behaviour.

Pedophiles for example, their advocates and even those who prosecute them, will argue that such behaviour is often driven by unchangeable biological predisposition.  A convincing case can be made that many pedophiles were born that way.  The same can be said for a proportion of cases for any of a range of types of anti-social, perverse, criminal or harmful behaviours.  Yet none of this should lead society to accept such behaviour as legitimate or acceptable.  Being born that way doesn't make it right.  On another level: the pain, suffering and destruction caused by adulterous relationships for example is never erased by claims that it is 'natural' behaviour.  To privilege and protect behaviour on the basis of supposed unchangeable impulses, whether proven or not, merely licenses destructive depravity.  

Everyone is responsible for their own behaviour regardless of biologically-driven impulses.  Every person has a responsibility to suppress impulses, desires and attractions that are wrong.  


Mutual romantic love and mutual consent don't inherently legitimise or justify a sexual relationship and neither do cultural norms.

This precept is illustrated by the fact that mutual romantic love and mutual consent don't excuse incest, even between adults for example. The same applies to pedophilia. The fact that entire societies of hundreds of millions of people endorse and practice child marriage for example doesn't make child marriage acceptable.

What people do in private is not just their business and society does reserve the right to impose restrictions on private sexual behaviour, even between consenting adults.  Private sexual behaviour can have a very public cost. 


'Gender' is a biological term. 

Archaeologists can identify gender from skeletal remains.  Chromosomes contained within every cell in the body determine gender; reproductive organs define it.  Unlike some animals, humans do not and cannot change their gender.


Jack and Jill went...  Well, eventually the grew up, fell in love and wanted to get married.  But the laws of the land wouldn't allow them to.

Tom Tucker is attracted to certain types of people.  Experts say the impulses he experiences are innate and unchangeable.  Tom went to jail after he persuaded an object of his desire to share in the expression of his hard-wired biologically-driven attraction.

Jack and Jill are biological brother and sister.  Tom is a pedophile.

We all agree that some patterns of sexual relationship are wrong.  Privacy behind closed doors, mutual consent and mutual romantic love or biological hard wiring don't make them right and won't excuse or acquit people who engage in such behaviour.

What about other patterns?

What about de facto relationships for example, where the only difference is signatures on a legal document?

There is a wide range of competing patterns of sexual relationships that contradict the One Pattern.  There is also a wide spectrum of paraphilia that drive various sexual behaviours. These competing patterns in turn cover a wide range of levels of community and legal acceptance.  Ultimately they differ only in how far they fall short of the One Pattern and the boundary conditions litmus test.  Some are close but not equal.  Others fail the test completely.  Some are just more wrong than others.  Some are harmful and some are more harmful than others.  Some are perverse and some are more perverse than others. There is only one pattern that is completely right.