Like breathing and eating, sexual behavior is an element of the human condition that is necessary for keeping the species alive. But unlike other creatures roaming the planet, in human beings, sexual activity is more than just a means of procreation; sexual activity helps define who we are to ourselves and to others, it provides needed relief from stress, it gives us enjoyment, and it offers a form of intimacy that helps bond us together. It is unfortunate that many religious institutions have taken this most basic human activity and turned it into a moral issue in an effort to control their followers, create stigmas regarding certain behaviors, and relegate it to an act of necessity and not enjoyment. In so doing, the religious restrictions regarding sexual behavior have created an atmosphere of ambiguity and shame where none need exist.
This is not to say that sexual behavior should not have some restrictions that become codified into social laws. But it is important to remember that sexual norms are a constantly shifting paradigm, varying from one culture to the next and from one era to another. While certain prohibitions regarding sexual behavior are necessary for the well being of society, these taboos should reflect a sense of social safety needs, rather than religious values. Criminal sexual behaviors such as rape, child molestation and non-consensual sexual acts are abhorrent forms of expressing ones sexual desires because they deny the rights of the individual or take advantage of one who is not in a position to make an informed choice regarding the contact. These acts are, and should remain illegal, carrying serious consequences to those who violate the legal codes and inflict their sexual desires on unwilling victims.
Any other regulation of sexual behavior should not rise to the level of illegality simply because one or another religious group feels that it should be. To do so inflicts the moral values of one upon another and denies people the freedom of choice to experience sexuality as they see fit. For most people, sexual behavior does not remain static throughout their lives, since as their own goals for finding sexual partners changes, so too do their views on appropriate sexual behavior. As such, society has no right to dictate what constitutes acceptable sexual activity beyond those acts mentioned above.
In that vein, it seems ridiculous to have laws prohibiting acts like prostitution, adultery, consensual sodomy, oral copulation, homosexuality, and even displays of nudity when in the privacy of your own property or the property of like-minded individuals. Indeed, most sexually related laws stem from a puritanical religious morality rather than from any actual threat to society at large. Furthermore, such laws, many of which are wholly unenforceable, only serve to congest the legal codes and processes, waste precious public funds for spurious enforcement, and detract the public from issues that more appropriately belong in the public realm.
It’s not surprising that our most popular forms of entertainment- movies, music, television, and literature- are filled with sexual innuendo. After all, sexual behavior has many positive benefits, such as the ones listed at the beginning of this essay. What is surprising is the double speak with which society addresses the disparity between what we show and what we allow. It seems as if society is saying on one hand that sexuality and sexual behavior is okay to display in fictional or commercial terms, but not in actual, practical, real life situations. This dichotomy leads to confusion among the young who are experiencing their own sexuality for the first time as well as creating an environment for harmful sexual behaviors among the adult population.
A better solution would be to repeal all sexual laws except for those directly addressing rape, molestation of children, and other non-consensual sexual acts that actually infringe on a persons physical security. Society may have the right to create restrictions regarding appropriate locations for sexual activity and perhaps the authority to mandate age restrictions for consensual sexual activity, but not much else. I can hear the moralists begin to stammer now, with protestations about the impropriety of certain acts that, if legalized (or at least de-stigmatized), would likely lead to wide-spread orgies in the street, dehumanization of women in general, and random acts of sexual mayhem. But such statements are, of course, ridiculous. Simply making an act legal does not ensure that all public decency would be thrown out the window. The moral guidelines for sex should be passed down within our homes and churches, not in our legal codes, thus allowing people to choose what is acceptable to them without restricting the actions of others. And, comprehensive, factual education should be implemented regarding the physical and mental consequences of engaging in sexual activity before one is emotionally able to accept the results of sexual practices
So what are the benefits to society if sexual laws are repealed? For starters, the decriminalization of prostitution would allow for its practitioners to join the public workforce in a constructive manner, leading to an increase of taxable employment and a decrease in enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration costs. These funds could be funneled back into the public coffers to help pay for social programs and governmental obligations. The relief upon law enforcement would allow them to better spend their time protecting society from violent criminals instead of harassing sex workers. It would also protect those in the sex industry from the unscrupulous practice of sexual slavery by removing them from the dominion of pimps. Eliminating the stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession and requiring sex workers to engage in mandatory physical check-ups could improve public health issues. This might also reduce the instances of forced sexual activity by providing people a legal option for obtaining casual sex.
The elimination of adultery laws, admittedly rarely enforced already, would allow single people to enjoy and experiment with sex without having to commit to a serious relationship before they were ready, leading to a decrease in failed relationships borne from social pressure to “get hitched before getting it on.” The removal of taboos on certain sexual practices would free people to enjoy their sexual preferences without being ostracized. Relaxing the bans on public nudity, in appropriate locations, would negate the feelings of shame that many wrongly associate with evil but instead is the natural state of the human body. And proper education could limit the instances of teen pregnancy, which in itself contributes to a multitude of societal upheaval.
We should leave it to parents and pastors to impart sexual morality to their children and let society provide the educational material necessary to make good sexual choices. Leave it to individuals to discover what sexual behavior best suits their needs at a given point in their lives. Reduce the social stigmas attached to sexual activity and you increase the odds of couples engaging in healthy sexual behavior that is conducive to the creation of stronger intimacy and personal ties. And attach certain social and legal obligations to any sexual behavior that results in the creation of new life, ensuring that with sexual activity comes the responsibility to properly take care of that new life.
Much like the laws against drugs, laws against sexual behavior only assure that more people will attempt to push the envelope of healthy behavior and act in ways that are more harmful to themselves and to society in general. Only through their elimination coupled with comprehensive education can we guarantee that people are able to experience individual freedom without draining the public resources or encroaching on the most personal behaviors of us all.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 11th, 2005 at 4:35 am and is filed under Common Sense, Crime, Equality, Government, Justice, LGBT, Life, Politics, Reform, Sex.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 11th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Why would legalizing Gay Marriage be good for Society? Would it help to keep the species evolving or would it help bring about it’s end? If we’ve gotten this far without it, why would we want to have it now for so few?
God gave us laws to live by, and when we attempt to insert our own laws of life, we doom ourselves as have past civilizations.
While claiming to be “progressive” and so much smarter, we are really only fooling ourselves.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
(reply to Ottman)
Actually, this essay does not touch on the subject of gay marriage…that will be coming soon though.
As for your assertions regarding God’s laws, please refer to the essay called “Morality and the Law” which, I think, clearly enunciates my positions regarding the insertion of religious beliefs into the common public codes.
A quick thought for you though…if legalizing gay marriage affects so few, how is it a detriment to the continuation of the species? Are you implying that by allowing it in a legal context that you and all your friends and neighbors would somehow need to go and find yourselves a homosexual relationship? I’m pretty sure that my wife and I wouldn’t scrap our marriage just because two people of the same sex want to have legal protections along with their personal devotion to each other.
A little common sense here Ottman. Allowing individuals the freedom to decide their own sexuality without having to fear discrimination or legal trouble has absolutely no effect on how you choose to live your own life, nor does it effect the species as a whole.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Ottman,
On the other hand, why would legalizing Gay Marriage be bad for Society? Would it stop heterosexual couples from marrying?
There are gay people in society — there always have been — the only change would be allowing them to legalize their relationship.
“God” (or whatever name you choose to give to the Creator) didn’t give us anything except life — those “laws” you refer too were conceived, drafted and promulgated by men who wanted to mold societal behavior. They’re not bad, but they’re not laws, they’re man-made rules for people who want membership in their religion.
Ken,
Great, common sense, post!
February 11th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
To be completely honest, I’ve seen more evidence that indicates that “open-sexuality” leads to greater sexual predation, not less. As with most aspects of our lives the more we indulge ourselves, the more we crave something “more”. Lets face it the forbidden fruit is still the most tempting. If we remove the hinderances (taboos) to certain behaviours, eventually more extreme ones will start to crop up… it’s just human nature.
Otherwise I think that people should be allowed to exercise their own Freewill in this matter. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals wanting to be what they are. I just don’t believe that their behavior needs special recognition, or protection, from our laws.
February 11th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
(reply to M+)
Your statement regarding “the forbidden fruit” only serves to strengthen my point. That is, if we remove the taboo and something is no longer forbidden, it no longer has that appeal.
Also, like other peccadilloes, there is a certain number of people who will engage in a certain bahavior regardless of how society views it. Simply legalizing or “normalizing” behaviors does not mean that everyone will recklessly engage in those practices, it just ensures that those who do are not legally persecuted by the rest of society for following what they feel is necessary for their own fullfillment.
And, as I mentioned, sexual predators must be severly dealt with to ensure the safety and freedoms that society should be allowed to enjoy. Perhaps with consistent enforcement of verified sexual predation coupled with severe penalties and broad based educational efforts, we could reduce the instances of those deprivations.
Thanks for your input.
February 12th, 2005 at 6:40 am
I have found, in my vast experience, that this is bull. Oh sure, in theory you may think it sounds pretty workable but theory is not real life (ask the founding fathers of communisim…well no, actually, ask the poor sods who had to live at the bottom of the communism food chain). In real life, you need to ask yourself, “Now what is the end of this?”. Hmmm, STD’s, more abortions (if it were possible), AID’s, the inability to form intimate relationships, the devaluing of human beings (trust me on this one, as if you will!, lots and lots of unfulfilled women (I don’t mean due to lousy lovers neither)…shall I go on? It just wouldn’t work. But, hey, you can try it if you want. not me though. I’m quite monogomously happy and sexually healthy..well except for my imaginary malady (gotta read my blog to find out that one)!
February 12th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Ken-We enjoy your blog and say ‘bravo’ to this post. Very clearly stated, logical and positive.You outline a philosophy that I was fortunate to experience coming into adulthood on Cape Cod. We didn’t crave indulging in more-more-more, but were content to enjoy the wonders and pleasures of the freedoms we advanced. Thanks for the solid presentation.
February 12th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
I’ve yet to hear an opponent of gay marriage present a good reason why it should be prevented, aside from their personal religious dogma, which should not be grounds for legislation (but is in today’s America). It’s impossible to define what they are “protecting” marriage from.
Well, here’s what I think: call me a cynic, but I think that it all boils down to money, like just about everything else. Insurance, community property division, inheritance… I heard an attorney on the radio mention that divorce and palimony issues are incredibly complex and messy. Throw in child custody and you’ve got a hot issue with a lot at stake for a lot of entities.
I like this defense of gay marriage: it should be the preferred option by conservatives, because one of their main objections to it is that a gay lifestyle supposedly involves much more promiscuity (!?) than a hetero lifestyle, and gay marriage would promote committment and family values. But oh, they wouldn’t want those for anyone else, would they?
February 12th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
You’ve stated at least twice now that non-concensual sex, or predatious behavior is to be abhorred and illegalized, but you do not mention by what “standard” or morality you base this on. What if someone more “loose” than yourself disagrees with the church of Ken?
February 12th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Ken,
Great essay, great blog. Its refreshing to find someone who is willing to give these issues some thought and spark discussion. Even if people aren’t going to change their minds, it’s great to at least have the discussion be open. Keep it up.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:16 am
(responses to various comments)
Dot Bar- As mentioned in the post, along with the decriminalization and/or normalization of the various sexual taboos, factual and comprehensive education is necessary to inform people of the best ways to reduce instances of STD’s and abortion. You obviously can’t “open the floodgates” without giving people the knowledge to row their boats. And I don’t ever say that these kinds of activities are for everyone to do, just that they should not be restricted based on religious morality issues. I am happy that you have found what works for you…why prohibit others from finding what works for them?
MandT- Thanks for the positive response. I am glad that you were able to experience sexual revelations in spite of societal taboos.
SheaNC- Thanks for the input on homosexual marriage. As mentioned before, I’ll be posting an essay that further explores this issue.
Selected Pete- I’m not sure how “non-consensual sex” and “predatory sexual behavior” can be taken in any other way than it is intended. Any sexual contact with a party who clearly does not accede to it would fall into the category of “non-consensual.” Yes, that even includes people who change their mind about sexual encounters prior to actual contact. Also, when someone changes their mind during contact, the sex should immediately stop, but that person should not cry foul for contact occurring before they switched to “no.” Predatory behavior would include the forcible sexual contact acts such as rape. These concepts are not just “the Church of Ken” but rather fall into the category of mutual respect and civil behavior.
Marc- If we don’t talk about things, we can’t change them. That is the whole reason why I write.
Thanks to all for stopping by.
February 13th, 2005 at 3:23 am
Thanks for just saying it like it is Ken. It really doesn’t seem like rocket science, does it?
All people are sexual. It is simple. It is the way God intended. Yes, that gives us a great responsibility. None of this is new. Funny how we always behave as if we just invented human nature.
We MUST educate young people about sex. We MUST prepare them in advance of sexual relationships for the emotional and physical realm in which they venture. I thought we were archaic when I was a teen- but I can’t believe how far we’ve regressed!
Prevention is the best cure for unwanted pregnancy. Did you know that 7% of the women in America that don’t use birth control for whatever reason, are responsible for 53% of the abortions? If you don’t like abortions, you can’t knock education. I look forward to your essay on this subject Ken.
More education doesn’t cause promiscuity (did having a condom in your wallet ever guarantee that you were going to get lucky?), it creates an environment where people make informed decisions. I don’t want my kids to get STD’s, and I think it’s appropriate for them to learn about all of that in school. What I think about pre-marital sex and the way our family runs it’s personal business belongs at home.
A note to Ottoman in regard to “the end of the species” comment. You do realize that marriage is manmade in the first place- right? Therefore, the rules can be rewritten. (Let us recall the many rewritings of the Bible) Not promoting commitment and refusing to include homosexuals in the moral marriage club is to no one’s benefit. Unless you enjoy excluding people, of course. I must reiterate what SheaNC said about money being the motivating factor for our powers that be, certainly not morality. That’s just a vehicle.
And second, come on~ our species is not at risk of dying out. If that’s what you’re being told, get that facts at: http://www.overpopulation.com, because you will be shocked how overgrown we have become, especially in relation to the shrinking amount of farmland available to feed this growing giant.
And even if overpopulation wasn’t such a factor, moving into eachother’s bedrooms with a checklist of do’s and don’t’s has no place here. As long as people do their best to lead happy and healthy sexual lives, who are we to judge them? I cannot fathom that even the “rightest-wing” person truly believes that their marriage would suffer because of another couple tying the knot, gay or not. Especially since the great majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Do we really have room to talk? If the anti-gay marriage movement is to rid ourselves of the duty to lead by example in the successful marriage dept, then I guess I understand the abhorance to the idea. That would be an interesting attempt indeed.
I never got from Ken’s essay that open-sexuality is the goal. And, promiscuity is not necessarily the bi-product of a guilt-free sex life. I know that some people need little fuel for their sexual fire to go burning out of control, but they have issues with or without our decision-making. Promiscuity exists and always has for BOTH sexes, we’re not going to change that. But we can create more responsible sexual beings. I don’t think sunbathing topless, for instance, would cause rampant havoc on beaches everywhere. It would just remove one more needless taboo, and instill new standards of manners and acceptable behavior (mainly) for men. We were all born naked, afterall.
February 13th, 2005 at 6:50 am
(response to BonJ)
Well said BonJ. It’s always helpful to have similar points of view enunciated in another way to better express a point of view.
February 13th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Actually, my point is that there will always be a “taboo”. There’s no escaping this. Rape is a “taboo”, yet people engage in it despite the fact that it is illegal. Why are there such things as “snuff films”? Again, call it a “taboo” or call it illegal, there are still people out there engaging in this activity. Like I said… it’s just human nature to go one step further, to push that envelope.
And while I agree with you on the idea that education is the key, who do we appoint this task to?
Many parents are hoping that the schools will help them to avoid the “unpleasantness” of having to deal with their own kids. But our schools can’t even teach our students how to read at an age/grade appropriate level. Why should we trust them to educate our children about sex? Besides, I thought libertarians wanted less government involvement in our daily lives. This seems as if it would be begging for more intrusion. Just a thought.
February 13th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
(response to M+)
To relegate rape to the status of simply being “taboo” denies the impact it has and completely diregards the fact that rape is always unwanted and inexcusable. Those who commit the act have little or no regard for others. The same cannot be said of people who want to experience other sexual practices with a consensual partner.
As for educating people, I agree that our current education system is failing miserably in a wide array of areas, and it too needs “a bit of fixin’.” Parents need to educate their children, of course, but schools also need to be allowed to teach children factual information without fear of being sued. Our schools are too timid today because of the lack of parental support, political correct nonsense, and overall societal apathy. But education is another topic for another day.
BTW- I never identified myself as a Libertarian. I am a registered “non-affiliated” voter, meaning I support no particular party platform other than that of Common Sense.
Thanks again for the comment.
February 13th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Ken, you write excellent, very logical essays. I am adding you to my blogroll.
Keep up the good work.
February 16th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Just to clarify. It isn’t that I would simply relegate rape to being a mere taboo. But, as we see more unconventional behaviors being normalized then the truly deviant behaviors become more like unconventional behavior. I am reminded of this by recent stories regarding NAMBLA. How such an organization can even exist leaves me dumbfounded.
We may like to believe that the “slippery slope” argument is unfounded, but it has yet to not manifest itself when restrictions on behaviors are reduced or removed.