This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.This website is owned, maintained, and © copyrighted by Michael Wong.
Last Updated: Sep 4, 2007. Read the Site FAQ!
Fundamentalist puritanism doesn't stop with our children, whether they be prepubescent or approaching high school graduation. The fundamentalists don't even think that adults should be permitted sexual freedom, and they are constantly trying to enact laws which will force their narrow-minded sexually repressive attitudes onto the rest of the population. Young mothers who breast feed their children in public are given dirty looks and accused of being "indecent". Women who wear thong bikinis are used as examples of "immorality" and decaying values. Pornography is subjected to countless restrictions, and people are expected to feel guilt over the mere act of entering an adult video store. Prostitution is illegal. According to the ACLU, sodomy (anal sex, although in centuries past, the word "sodomy" used to refer to any form of sex which was not aimed at the goal of procreation) was once illegal in every American state. Anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in more than a dozen states, with punishments ranging from a $500 fine in Arizona to as much as 20 years in prison in Massachusetts and Virginia.
It gets even stranger; in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, possession of sex toys (eg. vibrators) is a crime. The ACLU sued to overturn these bizarre laws and won a temporary victory in Alabama, but the prohibition on sex toys was restored on appeal (the judges said that Alabama's "interest in public morality is a legitimate interest rationally served by the statute"). Unbelievably, as we enter the 21st century, a woman who is found in possession of a vibrator in Alabama may be subject to as much as a $10,000 fine and a year of hard labour. Of course, firearms are not subject to any such prohibitions, which means that, in effect, the Alabama courts consider a vibrator more dangerous than a gun! And the fundamentalists complain that this Victorian-era stupidity isn't enough! We supposedly need more restrictions on our private sexual lives. More restrictions on pornography. More restrictions on the manner in which we dress. In other words, welcome to the 16th century.
But I find it interesting that none of them can answer this simple question: Why is sex considered "unclean"? Why should we be made to feel guilty for enjoying it, or experimenting with it? Why is premarital sex (as opposed to extramarital sex, ie- adultery) immoral? Why is pornography immoral? Why is prostitution immoral? Whose rights are being violated when two consenting adults have sex? Whose rights are being violated when consenting adults make pictures or movies of their sex acts and then sell them for profit? Whose rights are being violated when two consenting adults decide to exchange sex for money? Some of this might not be what we want for ourselves, but why is it immoral for others? Why must the state use the threat of force to prevent "immoral" actions between consenting adults which harm no one, and which should be no one's business?
The problem here is not humanist "immorality", but Christian sexual repression. Christian moderates can usually agree with humanists on on matters of human rights, or what classical philosophers described as the "dignity of Man", but they often agree with their fundamentalist peers when it comes to sexuality. Christians tend to view sex as a love of the flesh which draws people away from God and is therefore immoral (since allegiance to God is paramount in their moral code). Moreover, terms like "sexual deviation" and "depravity" are almost universally regarded as synonymous with "immoral", even though it's perfectly conceivable to engage in "deviant" behaviour without hurting anyone. "Deviation" is merely a psychology short-form for deviation from social norms, and it doesn't necessarily equate to immorality; I once saw a psychology textbook which described interracial marriage as an example of sexual deviance; does this mean there's something immoral about it? As for the Bible, the Old Testament describes sex with women as "defilement", thus suggesting that the sex act itself is somehow sinful, and the Ten Commandments also contain a prohibition against coveting your neighbour's wife, which some have interpreted to mean that even sexual desire is sinful. The Old Testament God even instructed his followers to stone a woman to death if she was found not to be a virgin on her wedding night (that's one of the parts of his "covenant with the Israelites" that fundamentalists don't talk about much, even though they expect us to mindlessly obey the other parts).
The situation didn't improve with the New Testament, in which Jesus' divinity was established through the fact that he was supposedly born without the "unclean" act of sexual procreation. I find it hard to believe that people accepted Mary's story about immaculate conception even though it was an obvious excuse to avoid being stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock, but be that as it may, Jesus himself actually sounded like a pretty open-minded guy on the issue of sex, even making a point of accepting prostitutes and defending adulterers from lynch mobs. This could have been one of his greatest contributions to European culture (not full equality for women, but at least a modicum of respect). Unfortunately, Paul undid all of that with his voluminous misogynist statements, and for some incomprehensible reason, Paul constitutes the bulk of the New Testament. He advocated celibacy as a way of bringing yourself closer to God, and bragged about how he had abused, mistreated, and generally neglected his physical body in preparation for the second coming of Christ.
However, the rest of us can't relate to any of this, and we want to know: what the Hell is so damned bad about sex? Fundamentalists are notoriously narrow-minded, and they tend to assume that their bizarre equation of "sex=immorality" is universal. However, this is completely untrue, even among religions. Not only do atheists uphold sex as natural and beautiful, but Taoists uphold it as part of their religion, and many polytheistic religions even have special gods or goddesses devoted entirely to sexuality! Could it be that the early Israelites knew that in order to build a religion upon a sense of collective guilt for sin, one would have to define sin in such a manner that everyone is guilty? What better "sin" than sex, which is truly natural and truly universal?
Unlike Biblical value systems, the humanist moral code is utterly unconcerned with "closeness to God". It is concerned only with ethics, not bizarre prohibitions against physical pleasure. Therefore, as long as the acts are consensual and do not involve children, it contains no prohibitions against nudity, sex, kinky sex, enthusiastic sex, sex on Sundays, sex in interesting positions or unusual orifices, pornography, or even prostitution. And why should it? Is it wrong to enjoy sex, or make a game out of it? Does the state have the right to tell a woman that she can't trade sex for money if she wants to? Women do it legally in Nevada, where prostitution occurs without the underage girls and drug addicts that accompany it everywhere else. And must we equate the joy of sex with marital infidelity? Marital infidelity is immoral for either a Christian or a humanist. I promised my wife many years ago that I would be loyal until death do us part, and my word is my bond, as any humanist who understands the importance of integrity will attest (there are also other non-religious reasons to avoid infidelity, but I'm straying a bit off-topic).
If a humanist asks his wife to dress up in a French maid uniform, carry a feather duster, and role-play that old story about the hotel guest and the naughty ... (ahem, perhaps I'll skip the details), he isn't hurting anyone. If a lonely teenager jacks off at night, he isn't hurting anyone (I don't think he should be beaming with pride, but he's not hurting anyone). If two consenting adults are engaged in a relationship and have premarital sex, they aren't hurting anyone. If two people want to talk dirty during sex, or watch porno while they're doing it, or use sex toys, or say blasphemous things about the Virgin Mary at the moment of climax, they're not hurting anyone. Try as they might, no Christian can explain what's wrong with any of these things without resorting to Biblical appeals to authority. And what about homosexuals? Isn't that immoral? Again, I would ask why. Even if you're uncomfortable with it, does it really matter to you what two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes? The only conceivable harm from non-adulterous sexual relations between consenting adults is the possibility of disease transmission, and if that happens, it would be the fault of Christians, not humanists, because they have been suppressing sex education!
In March 2001, the international community was outraged when the Taliban state church destroyed 1500 year old statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Loud protests came from all over the world (strangely enough, from governments which had been silent about the horrific persecution of women in Afghanistan), because it was considered immoral to destroy cultural artifacts out of religious hatred. But if it is considered morally abhorrent to destroy art works which defy religious beliefs, then why is it acceptable to destroy and censor materials which depict the sex act, even though the only justification is the Christian religious belief system? Marriage and relationship counsellors cite sex as one of the most common sources of marital difficulties; is the problem that the sex is too frequent, or too exciting? Hardly; it usually stems from repression and inhibition, which frankly exists for no good reason and which destroys peoples' enjoyment of their own sex lives. For millenia, people lived in caves and one-room dwellings; do you think people grew to adulthood without ever hearing or knowing of sex? The idea that sex should be covered up and never discussed or seen is a Victorian notion that has led to countless sexual dysfunctions and has no basis in real morality. So where is the "morality" in sexual puritanism? The answer is: nowhere. If you want to demonstrate your morality, then show kindness and consideration to your neighbour, rather than telling him what to read, what to watch, and what to do in the privacy of his own bedroom.
Continue to 7. Crime and Divorce
Jump to sub-page:
Jump to:
This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.