Kantian Marriage and Beyond: Why It Is Worth Thinking about Kant on Marriage LINA PAPADAKI Kant has famously argued that monogamous marriage is the only relationship where sexual use can take place ‘‘without degrading humanity and breaking the moral laws.’’ Kantian marriage, however, has been the target of fierce criticisms by con- temporary thinkers: it has been regarded as flawed and paradoxical, as being deeply at odds with feminism, and, at best, as plainly uninteresting. In this paper, I argue that Kantian marriage can indeed survive these criticisms. Finally, the paper advances the discussion beyond marriage. Drawing on Kant’s conception of friendship, I suggest that he might have overlooked the possibility of sex being morally permissible in yet another context. Undoubtedly, for Kant, sexual use can be extremely problematic, since it is tightly linked to objectification. According to his vivid statement in the Lec- tures on Ethics: Sexual love makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry . . . [Sexual love] taken by itself is a degradation of human nature . . . as an Object of appetite for another a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by every one. (Kant 1969, 163) Kant has famously argued that monogamous marriage is the only relation- ship where sexual activity can take place ‘‘without degrading humanity and breaking the moral laws’’ (167). Kant saw marriage as an ideal relationship, characterized by perfect equality and reciprocity in the surrender of the two spouses’ lives and happiness to each other. Within this safe context, people can exercise their sexuality without becoming mere things for use. 1 Hypatia vol. 25, no. 2 (Spring, 2010) r by Hypatia, Inc.