|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
| Subscribe | Archive | Advertise | Write for Us | About Us |
|
||
|
|
||||||||
| |
|
What Do We Do Now that the Sexual Revolution is Over?by Robin Jacobs and Roy SpeckhardtOver the past two decades some of the hard-won gains of the sexual revolution have lost ground to politicized religious fundamentalism. For example, while there have been improvements in the family planning field, government program funding in the United States has recently been slashed and the availability of certain contraceptives is under attack. Furthermore, although progress has been made in sexual health with the discovery and government approval of a variety of birth control methods and contraceptives, some health insurance companies in the United States-and more recently some pharmacies-refuse coverage for and access to this technology. In fact, many health insurance policies today don't provide coverage for the full range of sexual health needs: they won't pay for contraceptives, sexual dysfunction medications, tubal ligations, vasectomies, sexual reassignment surgery, and the like. Conservative legal actions have also created difficulties regarding access to comprehensive family planning services in the United States and through its programs abroad. Amid this backlash, however, there has been progress. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered people have enjoyed legislative, judicial, corporate, and social gains. And marriage rights for non-heterosexuals are now on the table. Additionally, with the expansion of various sexual rights movements, mainstream notions of gender, sex, and relationships have been challenged and we are being asked to embrace a fuller spectrum of possibilities beyond the binary male-female union. For these and other reasons, the time is now ripe for a full critique of A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities. Published in the Humanist at the beginning of 1976 and signed by notable sexologists of the time, this document codified the results of the sexual revolution. The sexologist who drafted the New Bill, Lester Kirkendall, and those who edited his work were living in a forward-thinking time for family planning, sexual health, and sex education-a time when normative behaviors were relaxing in a seemingly permanent trend toward a future without inhibitions. The New Bill reads as if reversals don't happen and it overlooks or stops short of advancing a number of ideas in the forefront of our understandings about sexuality today. Added to this, the very Humanism underlying the New Bill has itself has matured. Most of the key principles in the document nonetheless continue to hold true. The New Bill was at the cutting edge of its time and still offers useful recommendations for large numbers of people today. So it is within that larger positive context that we now focus on ways in which this document--available online at www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/NewBillSexRights.pdf--might be improved. Religion The New Bill begins with a proper recognition that the imposition of shame onto sexuality has prevented full human enjoyment. This aptly applies to many religious groups' approval and disapproval of certain kinds of sexuality. But this sort of religious guilt or shame isn't universal, and, now that the research has been done, it can't be denied that large numbers of traditionally religious people also enjoy healthy sexual relationships. The issue of religious guilt and shame also ignores the evidence that human sexuality hasn't always been vilified by the dominant faith. Article 1 in the document declares that purposes of sexuality outside of procreation "were regarded as derivative, were looked at askance, or were sternly disapproved." But newer global perspectives formed by research in anthropological, historical, and gender studies suggest that non-procreative sexuality has been considered acceptable in numerous cultures. This isn't meant to downplay the harmful effects some repressive religious traditions have on sexuality. Practices around the world today demonstrate how some religious and cultural traditions can negatively impact sexual relationships between people: genital mutilation, forced marriage, and the outlawing of divorce are just three examples. But many civilizations in history, including the ancient Greek and Indian, accepted various forms of sexual expression often condemned by contemporary American religious leaders. Feminism and Equality Humanists have long advanced feminist ideals of social, political, and economic equality. But the face of feminism has changed dramatically over the last thirty years. Equality should exist not only between sexes but also between genders. On feminism, Article 2 of the New Bill proclaims the importance of equity:
This statement unnecessarily places men outside of feminism. Not all men are necessarily against feminism, and not all women are necessarily feminists. Likewise, men aren't the only violators of feminist principles and women aren't the only victims. Both sexes are responsible for fostering a culture of equality. The document also neglects the subtle form of sexual discrimination that lingers long after legal barriers are removed. The idea that equal opportunity in a given setting will end sexism has been disproved. Also, the phrase "all traces of sexism erased" suggests, perhaps unwittingly, a future when the struggles of past suffragists and feminists are forgotten. Too many young women are unaware of the work that was necessary to attain the opportunities and freedoms today's women enjoy. Ignorance or denial of the past has contributed to the current fall backwards. We need to be aware of the lingering and implicit effects that sexism has imprinted upon our institutions and attitudes. Inclusiveness Humanists have stood firmly on the side of equality and justice for all people, no matter their sexual orientation. But the New Bill uses heterocentric language in speaking on the subject-making gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, transgendered, and transsexual relationships a special case outside the mainstream. The introduction to the document labels these as "other sexual relationships" which are "also significant." And though Article 3 predicts a likelihood of wider social acceptance, heterosexual marital relationships remain the general focus with non-heterosexual relationships treated as secondary by not being included in every part of the document. As for marriage itself, the call for more inclusiveness in marriage rights can be complicated by questions of the sort posed by queer theorists that perhaps marriage isn't right for everyone and alternatives are needed to the relational boundaries posed by marriage. These deserve to be explored further in dialogue but weren't contemplated in the New Bill. Despite a steady number of evangelical youth pledging to refrain from premarital sex-even then facing limited success-it is now widely accepted. But Article 3 of the New Bill discusses such acceptance as a relatively new phenomenon.
As for extramarital sex, one can observe this phenomenon today. But we learn that, for many, the free love movement of the 1960s and 70s ended in heartbreak and single motherhood, leading large numbers to consider open relationships a mere excuse for lack of commitment. The lesson learned was that, for many people, the social resistance to open sexual relationships wasn't just another inhibition to be cast off. There are now polyamorous people who live happy, accepting lives in sexual relationships with multiple individuals. Because of this, polyamorists and others should be accepted alongside those with monogamous heterosexual and non-heterosexual relationships. Legal rights of those who choose polyfidelity warrant exploration. It is interesting to note that the New Bill, beginning with Article 1, downplays the significance of procreation in sexuality, stating: "But the need to limit population growth, the widespread use of effective contraceptives, and the developments in reproductive technology have made the procreative aspects of sex less significant today." The procreative aspects, however, aren't necessarily less significant-they just aren't imperative. When it comes to the choice to opt out of sexual relations altogether, this idea is unnecessarily condemned in the document. Lifelong, forced celibacy is certainly to be discouraged but periods of chosen celibacy can be healthy and rewarding. Birth Control and Safe Sex Article 5 says, "birth control information and methods must be freely available" "to both married and unmarried couples." This is restrictive. Couples aren't the only ones to be considered. Individuals need the same access, and this should include young people. Furthermore, birth control technology has advanced significantly since the 1970s, bringing new issues and opportunities to the fore. Access to family planning, however, continues to be a struggle, particularly with broad public support for a late-term abortion ban in the United States and the unnecessary controversy about allowing over-the-counter sale of "Plan B," the emergency contraceptive that prevents abortion and has been proven safe and effective. The authors of the New Bill had looked forward to a day of viable male contraception; but we seem no closer to it today. And American public school sex-education is experiencing a massive regression toward a dangerous know-nothing way of thinking. Comprehensive teaching-advocated in the New Bill and long proven effective-is being replaced by an inadequate abstinence-based approach. The New Bill egregiously dates itself right at the start when it states: "For the first time in history, there need be no fear of unwanted pregnancy or venereal disease, if proper precautions are taken." In today's world of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases the time of fearless sex is over; care is warranted even when proper precautions are taken. The U.S. government estimates that 28.9 million people have died of AIDS since the discovery of the disease. But this one mention of "proper precautions" is the only place where the New Bill discusses STDs. Preventing the global spread of HIV should be an essential part of any future Humanist statement on sexuality. And an ultimate goal of wiping out STDs altogether-on par with past medical campaigns against polio and smallpox-belongs on the agenda. Proper Emphasis Throughout the New Bill, attempts are made to deal with a number of specific issues, giving some of them unnecessary treatment and others not enough. For example: "The commercialization of sex needs careful scrutiny." This has become such an overwhelming issue that it deserves greater attention. Advertisers use sexuality in manipulative ways that subtly reinforce sexist and violent sexual behavior. And exposure to commercialized sexuality affects children at younger ages. Yet dealing with negative effects of commercialized sexuality may conflict with the Humanist value of freedom of expression. These issues deserve more conversation. Another subject that cries out for attention is sex trafficking, which now affects millions of people globally. Indeed, when it comes to Humanist action, the New Bill often fails to deliver, preferring to advocate for more discussion and study. It calls for people to "openly discuss ways of providing a comprehensive sex-education" and declares that the "commercialization of sex needs careful scrutiny." It adds, "Patterns in childrearing that may result in dysfunctional sexual expressions, such as child abuse and emotional deprivation, must be studied." Much research and discussion on sexuality has been done and conclusions have been reached. Therefore a more up-to-date statement would need to call for more action and change. In the interest of readability, a more concise approach, like that taken in the World Health Organization's 2002 definition of sexual rights (www.who.int/reproductive-health/gender/sexual_health.html#4), would be preferable.
Surprisingly, the New Bill contains no basic definition of sexuality. Here is one WHO uses:
Article 6 in the New Bill begins: "Sexual morality should come from a sense of caring and respect for others; it cannot be legislated." But the very next sentence says: "Laws can and do protect the young from exploitation and people of any age from abuse." These two sentences contradict each other, since legislating against rape, harassment, pornographic exploitation of children, and so on constitutes a legislation of morality. Of course, not all legislated morality-such as the anti "sodomy" statutes recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court-is good. Legislation against harmful activities in which there are victims should be distinguished from legislation against harmless activities in which there are no victims. Linguistic Issues The New Bill is a product of its time and place. And just as any new document must necessarily reflect today's philosophical underpinnings and cultural conditions, and will thus need to be updated as time passes, the New Bill uses phrases and ideas from its era. Also, some meanings have shifted to the point that elements of the statement are rendered inaccurate. For example, 1970s-inspired phrases like "wondrous adventure," "psychic growth," and "ego enhancement" can be found throughout the document. It overuses and misuses the term taboo; some sexual acts referred to in the New Bill as taboo no longer reach that level of cultural prohibition. Other language also strikes today's reader as alarming, such as the statement: "The human person, especially the female, has been held in bondage by restrictions that prescribed when, where, with whom, and with what parts of the body the sexual impulse could be satisfied." This use of the term "bondage" creates an unintended double entendre, given that bondage is also a sexual fetish. The New Bill goes on to say: "Certain forms of sexual expression are limiting and confining-for example, prostitution, sadomasochism, or fetishism." Yet today the proper term for prostitution is sex work and there are many who are in the sex industry by choice. Sadomasochism-now called S & M, domination and submission, and so on-is often a kind of harmless role playing. And the term "fetish," as now popularly used, no longer indicates an obsessive-compulsive fixation on some narrow and constrained form of sex but rather a self-affirming recognition of one's personal proclivities and favored fantasies. So the three examples listed needn't be characterized as things "limiting and confining" to be overcome. When it comes to matters of law, Article 6 begins: "Sexual morality should come from a sense of caring and respect for others; it cannot be legislated." But the very next sentence says: "Laws can and do protect the young from exploitation and people of any age from abuse." These two sentences contradict each other, since legislating against rape, harassment, pornographic exploitation of children, and so on constitutes a legislation of morality. Not all legislated morality, of course-such as the anti "sodomy" statues recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court-is good. Legislation against harmful activities in which there are victims should be distinguished from legislation against harmless activities in which there are no victims. Another striking feature of the New Bill is that it embraces sexual openness but lacks open sexual language. For example, nowhere in the statement do terms like "clitoris" or "penis" appear. Any revision should note that non-comprehensive sex education and some pornography prevent many women and men from understanding the importance and power of the clitoris in female sexual enjoyment. Vague expressions plague the document and result in a lack of clear vision. For instance, it opens with the sentence: "Sexuality has for too long been denied its proper place among other human activities." Later it says: "This integration of sexuality with other aspects of experience will occur only as one achieves an essentially balanced life. When this happens, sexuality will take its place among other natural functions." But what precisely is the "proper place" of sexuality? The document doesn't say. And certainly sexual expression isn't best compared to "other natural functions," like digestion and such. Also, the statement points to an oddly utopian experience, a "balanced life" within which everything will fall perfectly into place. Indeed, the penultimate sentence of the New Bill reads: "We believe that freeing our sexual selves is vital if we are to reach the heights of our full humanity." Such utopian notions are inconsistent with today's Humanism. So might be this statement in the conclusion: "We need to adopt the doctrine that actualizing pleasures are among the highest moral goods." A hierarchy of moral goods, with a highest good at the top, was a favorite theme in classical philosophy but is generally considered of little use by professionals in the field today. A New Direction The door is open to the development of a new proclamation that addresses sexuality from a contemporary Humanist position. This door is open despite A Declaration of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities, authored by Vern L. Bullough and published in the August/September 2004 issue of Free Inquiry. Bullough's document is merely a warmed over version of the New Bill, cleaving so closely, sentence-by-sentence, to the original that it is every bit as out of date. Indeed, because it treats most of its own pronouncements as revolutionary, which may have been the case in 1976 but certainly not today, the Declaration is embarrassing as a current Humanist statement. In general, there were so few improvements that nearly all of the critiques leveled here against the New Bill apply as well to the Declaration. The enterprise of drafting a new document begs a better effort than was provided by Bullough's light edit: his result constituting an unauthorized version of the New Bill that was created without the knowledge or consent of the Humanist or of the American Humanist Association, the copyright holder. In pursuit of a better effort, we hope this article and those accompanying it will spur further thought on the subject. Just as the 1976 New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities benefited from a thorough prior discussion at AHA conferences and in the pages of the Humanist, so will any worthy successor. Such a dialogue needs to include a diversity of voices not present back in the 1970s: AIDS activists, new feminists, queer advocates, sex trafficking opponents, polyamorists, and others. This new dialogue was in fact launched with the January/February 2003 issue of the Humanist and was continued in later issues as well as at the 2004 AHA national conference in Las Vegas. Confronting the new sexual challenges of today isn't easily done and will therefore involve further exploration before a document on sexuality can be written that humanistically leads our culture in a forward direction. Link to A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities Robin Jacobs, who recently graduated with a degree in philosophy and religion from New College of Florida, is the development assistant for the American Humanist Association. Roy Speckhardt, who has a master's degree in business administration from George Mason University, is director of membership and programs for the American Humanist Association. Caitlin Horrigan also contributed to this article.
| |||||||
