Weekly Poll: Should the State Have a Say in Your Sexuality?
Many regard their sexuality — whether their sexual orientation or their sexual behavior — to be private matters that shouldn't be the subject of state control, regulation, or interference. Others, though, treat sexuality as something which absolutely needs to be controlled and regulated by the state. These two positions are separated by a vast distance and are based on radically different conceptions of the nature of sexuality — and even of humanity itself. Which, though, do you think is most sensible and realistic?
Certainly behavior which occurs out in public can be subject to regulation, just as is the case with any behavior. I've never seen anyone argue that sexually-related behavior should be exempt from the same public standards we apply to everything else. This also necessarily includes standards like consent, not involving minors, etc. In fact, I think we can establish some important foundations by looking at how we treat other behavior.
Does anyone suggest regulating whether or not people can be fans of certain TV shows or sports teams? Does anyone suggest regulating whether or not people can express their support for TV shows or sports teams? Does anyone suggest regulating political affiliation or inhibiting public expression of political beliefs? Not in the same way that people — and by "people," we're looking almost exclusively at religious conservatives, especially evangelical Christians — want to regulate sexuality and inhibit public expression of one's sexual orientation.
It all seems to come down to controlling sexuality itself, and especially female sexuality. Sexuality is a very important aspect of our humanity and our conception of ourselves, so greater control over sexuality translates into greater control over human beings. It's not a coincidence that oppressive, totalitarian regimes have exercised extensive censorship over sexually explicit material and repression of sexual expression — and this includes otherwise secular regimes, like communist governments.
Comments
Crap. I accidentally voted “no.” I read the article title (rather than the actual survey question) and then clicked “no.” When I saw the results (mainly “yes”), I thought someone had somehow pranked the results. Then I read the question and did a forehead slap!
I don’t think it’s really necessary to generalize the question this much. Some illegal activities, such as bestiality, would get confounded into the argument. Many of these activities are arguable, but they should be argued from their specifics. After all, some would say we should do away with “not involving” minors also.
What I think you’re really getting at here is activities like prostitution, or any homosexuality laws still on the books. And, of course prostitution should be regulated. They should be required to have health insurance and physical exams regularly, and be licensed.
I do have some sympathy for those who wish to limit public expression. A lot of the religious do want to raise their children without sexual influences until at least a certain age. I understand their desire, because I really would have liked to raise my children without influence of religion until a certain age (I was thinking between 10 and 12, but this hasn’t been entirely possible). If we say, “no censorship of sexual expression” as a general principle, it means kids will be able to walk into a store and buy a porn mag, and then bring it to their friends (so even if you teach your own child not to go to those stores, someone will bring one in). This does happen with minors, of course, but usually at a somewhat later age. A good part of my reluctance to tell my 8-year old son details of sexuality has been that he’ll almost certainly go tell other kids (I know him; he will), likely getting him in trouble at school (they’re fascists) and interfering with other parents’ raising their children according to the developmental timeline they prefer.
Heh I did the same thing Tracieh
Cryptic:
I think you’re right that these surveys expect people to make certain assumptions (such as “consenting adults”). They are very generalized, and need to be taken with a grain of salt. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Austin post one that didn’t get some level of (usually valid) criticism from an astute reader pointing out problems with wording and ambiguities with interpretations.
I get your point as well about the idea of wanting to guard children on some level against certain data, but I have to come down on the side you expressed, which was “but this hasn’t been entirely possible.”
In my own view, I have come to view children + information sort of like this: If the kid is old enough to understand it, then he’s old enough to dialogue about it. If the kid is not old enough to understand it, then dialogue with the kid will be meaningless.
For most of my life I was of the opinion that kids should be guarded against certain issues that were “adult.” But as I got older, I started wondering more and more about exactly why anyone–child or adult–should not have access to information they could understand and show an interest in. I think one of the things that got me considering this more and more was my public support of the Library System. I finally decided that no book should be banned from the library.
When I was a child, my mother took me often to the library, where I was allowed to check out any book I wanted. She didn’t screen me. Honestly, I tended to check out pretty mundane, and age-appropriate materials. And I think most kids will lean toward categories that would appeal to their age group.
BUT, what if I had picked up a book about, let’s say “Understanding Hinduism”, and I was 12 or so. My mother, being a fundamentalist–what would she have done? I’m not sure. She once found some religious literature in my room and got fairly upset. I didn’t know it was “against” our particular creed. Also, someone gave me a rosary, and she got pretty upset about that. One day it “disappeared” from my room and I never found it.
Meanwhile, what if I was with a kid at the library and they wanted a book on “serial murder”? I was asked this question specifically. My answer was that I would likely talk to the child about _why_ they were interested in this book and what they were hoping to learn about this topic. Assuming a halfway intelligent answer (something short of “I’d like to learn how to do it”), I’d probably say “OK.” If they could handle the reading level, understood the topic, and didn’t have some scary deviant explanation about their interest (if that were the case, I’d likely make an appointment with a family therapist)–I’d let them get the book.
If it were based on some ideology that I was, myself, opposed to, I might actually read the book with the child and then have discussions/dialogues with the child about their views on the issue as they read. What do they think of this ideology? What is good about it? What is bad about it? How might it benefit someone? How might it harm someone?
I don’t think that giving children access to information is, in itself, problematic. I think that not providing any guidance or help in developing their ability to assess and critically examine data is what is generally lacking in homes where information is equated with “harm.” Again, if the child is able to understand it, and expresses interest–on what grounds should I oppose access to that data? That’s sort of rhetorical–I don’t mean to imply you’re suggesting I should want to restrict access.
But in regard to the concern that I should restrict my child in order to help another parent restrict his child, I see that as simply the problem of the parent who wants to restrict access to data. That’s not my concern. And best of luck to him, the kid will learn it sooner or later.
Still, I can see your real-world concern about not wanting to always be the parent on the phone with the teacher because your child is telling all the other kids about sex. I can actually see that happening. I guess that’s an individual call with each parent to gage how well their own kid can be discreet and understand that not all kids have this data–and some parents might be upset if they go around blabbing about it.
More and more, though, aren’t kids getting educated about their sexuality in response to child abusers? I don’t have any small children, so I have no clue. Maybe that’s just a media perception I picked up…?
I agree with you tracieh. I believe children should be free to learn about anything they want.
Kids are still too sheltered in regards to sexuality. The sheltering breaks children into two unhealthy groups:One group is brainwashed by their parents and think that they are going to be abstinent until marriage (yeah right) and the other goes out and has sex with no knowledge and ends up getting pregnant or a disease.With the proper sex education we could instead have the middle group: they know about and understand sex, can make good decisions about when it’s the right time for them, will probably have healthier relationships, and they’re comfortable talking about it which means that when they have children they can talk to them without embarrassment. But that’s just my opinion.
I don’t agree, Cryptic, with what you said about keeping your children free of religious influences. I think children should have comparative religion classes in elementary school. It’s a huge part of life and it’s better that he understands about religion so that he can see how crazy the people that actually believe in the stories really are. I don’t think adults give kids enough credit; they are intelligent, thinking humans and they just need guidance from adults. They don’t need there minds controlled by adults.
Tracie you are forgiven: I too voted no. Same reason.
My wife said to me: Ron, I think the people who moved in to the house down the street are bi-lingual. I said, that’s OK. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is nobody else’s business.
standard tamar fashion, i too clicked No first.
sometimes i forget to read the question. grrrr!
to me, if you are not hurting someone/thing else with your actions, there should be no law against it. perhaps laws against doing something in public, or near children etc. but no human is fundamentally more intelligent than me, especially when it comes to my own body.
just because someone else thinks a certain way of doing things is preferable does NOT mean i agree. and as long as i am not hurting someone else (and i’m not talking about their feelings or their morality), it’s my choice.
speaking in generalities:
if i want to shoot myself full of heroin repeatedly until i die? my choice.
if i want to choose same sex or something kinky, why can’t i?
people sure have a lot of nerve to think they know how to live better than i do.
living the longest, or playing nice with a god who never shows itself is not of the highest importance for everyone. and there’s nothing wrong with that.
first, i admit that i do not have children, and really do not have children in my life. my opinions on the matter are therefore… undoubtedly changeable if i were to breed in some way.
regardless, i think children are more intelligent than we give credit for. sheltering a child (overly) is not helpful unless you will shelter them their whole lives.
my childhood (via religion) was sheltered from those horrific things like “bad” music, “worldly” people and other religions’ ideas.
it was not, however, sheltered from more important things, like molestation (several friends of mine) the feeling that sex was the worst thing a person could do, classism, sexism, racism, etc etc (i could go on.)
though these things are a reflection of the time i grew up in, i can’t shake the ironic reminders of the Pharisees straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel.
i would rather have a parent give me the information lovingly (and safely), explaining it to me, creating a bond of trust, (that that parent will be there to help me) rather than letting an organization/religion teach me it’s morality, coldly and surgically, missing out the important lessons that could be drawn from it.
Tamar:
>first, i admit that i do not have children, and really do not have children in my life. my opinions on the matter are therefore… undoubtedly changeable if i were to breed in some way.
Whenever someone points out I don’t have kids (therefore my opinion is somehow not as relevant as that of a parent in matters of parenting), I remind them that although I don’t _have_ a kid, I _was_ one for many years.
Oddly, some people have kids, and then immediately forget what it was to _be_ a kid. They begin wanting to protect their kids from things they were exposed to, that, if you ask them, they will admit really didn’t hamper their progress in life. I don’t know how it is that people can be convinced that X is dangerous, even though _they_ and everyone they knew did/had X, and never suffered for it. But I’ve seen it happen in my own friends, I’m sorry to say.
A person either forgets what they were like as a child, adolescent, teen, young adult, or they remember it. If they forget it, they tend to be very conservative parents. If they remember it, they’re generally more lenient. (From what I’ve observed, again, in my own friends–many of whom have children, and also _were_ children at one time).