 |
| Anonymous/imgur |
“The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban
on Dildos”
The headline is from a motherjones story by David Corn 13 April 2016. Clearly, U.S. politicians are under scrutiny
for their present and past acts. What's relevant about this story for my blog
is the identification of sexual acts, moral judgments, and the role of
government.
Surely others are more focused on
how the views of this U.S. politician may affect what he does were he to be
elected. I don't discount the importance of that focus. Nevertheless, in A House Divided,I write about the divide between Christian cultures. And Cruz provides evidence
of a strong conservative moral perspective that has links to laws that purport
to limit the sexual behavior of others.
As you
see in the story, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement
and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does
not "forbid the private use of such devices."
The story discusses individual rights and government rights,
which are clearly important concerns when it comes to any aspect of life,
including sexuality.
Moral emotions at
work
From a moral psychology perspective, I notice an effort to
create associations that might sway a target audience. For example, the use of
the sexual devices was compared to “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in
consensual bigamy.” Setting aside any analysis of the analogy, we see a common
political strategy of linking something deemed “evil” such as prostitution with
something at least some may consider neutral, a “sexual device.”
The word obscene
also adds a negative feeling despite the problem with defining this vague
concept used to describe many things people simply don’t like. Of course, I
realize it has been used in legal contexts but that does not always mean the
definition is clear. Laws against obscenity are important. Obscenity must be clearly defined in order to be applied. Using obscenity in political rhetoric is often like a trick to produce a favorable emotional response.
Morals and harm
In the decision from the court of appeals, we see a
different argument based on harm concerns. The court identified the sexual devices
as “safe,” which made me wonder if they might have concerns if the devices
caused identifiable harm. Here again we are left to consider what safety means—presumably
they focused on bodily harm yet many of the arguments one hears against
noninterpersonal sex have to do with emotional well-being.
Morality of “Purpose
Driven Sex”
Another aspect of the decision challenged a role of
government in “sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.” It is of course
a religious notion that sex ought to be for procreation with ideas of God’s
blessing on the first couple of the Genesis story. Yet even religious persons
likely would not insist that people not have sex if they are past child bearing
age or unable to have children.
Again, the logic is not my concern here but rather the type
of thinking that links sexuality to procreation as if pleasure must take a back
seat to procreation.
Reflections
1. At least some U.S. leaders are very concerned about the
private ways people have sex. Presumably, if you limit sales, you so some sort of good. Harm is usually associated with a progressive or
liberal reason to consider something as wrong or worthy of a limitation. In
general, the principle of “do no harm” is helpful but surely not a deal-breaker
as one can think of the harm caused by years of smoking tobacco—future harm is
hard to predict—so often we are making probabilistic statements.
Arguments based on harmful effects can be a useful way to build a consensus provided there's evidence of harm. Identifying the harmful effects of a sexual practice can bring divided groups together to support a ban. Harm need to be overtly physical to be real. Psychological harm is important too.
Arguments based on harmful effects can be a useful way to build a consensus provided there's evidence of harm. Identifying the harmful effects of a sexual practice can bring divided groups together to support a ban. Harm need to be overtly physical to be real. Psychological harm is important too.
2. When Christians take their faith to work and a
sex-related issue arises, they seem to think about sex in moral terms.
Conservative Christians may attempt to condemn some acts or sex-related issues
not in the Bible (e.g., sale of vibrators) by linking them to acts that many
deem immoral or even disgusting such as hiring a prostitute.
Slamming prostitution is an old political strategy. Find a group of people despised in society. Link something neutral to that group. Gain support for your cause. It works. Unfortunately, many people in sex work (prostitution) are not there due to choice. Sex workers need government protection from exploitation rather than government condemnation.
Slamming prostitution is an old political strategy. Find a group of people despised in society. Link something neutral to that group. Gain support for your cause. It works. Unfortunately, many people in sex work (prostitution) are not there due to choice. Sex workers need government protection from exploitation rather than government condemnation.
3. Some Christians think God’s view of sex is for
procreation. This belief obviously has an impact on those that work to control
behavior via creating or supporting laws limiting sexual activity (or in this case limiting the sale of objects aiding sexual activity).
In my experience, even conservative Christians are willing
to celebrate the Joy of Sex (it’s the
title of an old book). There’s something a bit too cognitive about this kind of procreation-purpose language—people feel attracted to others and strong feelings mix with a biological
drive to have sex.
One way contemporary Christian clinicians speak about sex is
to call it “God’s gift.” Presumably, all sex is God’s sex, as long as a couple
is married.
Read more about Sex-related morality and Christian cultures in A House Divided
Contact
Information
Facebook Page: Geoff W. Sutton
Twitter @GeoffWSutton
Website: Geoff W. Sutton
www.suttong.com
Comments
Post a Comment