Over the last few years and longer, decades, Americans have put the tsk-tsk on talking openly about issues with sex. We titter at the subject, laugh politely and work desperately to change the topic.
Despite our protestations of how advanced and liberated on sexual issues we are, and the numerous pornographic fronts to that end, an open and real discussion of sex in America hasn't happened in decades. Whether it's uncomfortable or not, Prop 8 and other issues open up not just the chance to talk about those specific issues, but all issues regarding sexuality in America. And rather then touting it as group specific issues, now is the time to point out the obvious.. that this is at it's heart a very libertarian issue - the liberty to live life and discuss it.
When Kinsey published his initial works on sex in America, many were shocked and stunned. While not discussed even amongst friends and family, Kinsey broke down the doors to discuss issues regarding human sexuality. People cheated on their spouses. People engaged in bisexual and homosexual relationships. Couples lived with tolerances or open acceptance of infidelity. Premarital sex. Anal sex. Oral sex. Group sex. Gay sex.
The public was - at least in public forums - Shocked! Shocked I say! There was an outcry of the doom and gloom that would befall America because the subject was even discussed.
More then Social Security, sex in America remains not a "third" or "fourth" rail, sex is at the cornerstone of numerous laws throughout the country aimed at stopping, preventing, detaining or pushing into the corners the sex lives of numerous Americans.
A federal administration doesn't set these state and local policies - after all, no president writes out an executive order banning plastic sex toys in Texas. However, governments can prevent the civil discussion of rights as well as any understanding of them.
The unwillingness to discuss in a frank and open manner sexual issues in America has resulted in laws which deprive or criminalize behaviors.. and in some cases, create unintended crimes where there would otherwise be none. Young couples prosecuted for sex, finding that a boy may face multiple charges from statutory rape to various other crimes... all dependent on the sex act.
Federal Sex Offender laws put people on the sex offender registry who are guilty of having sex with their high school love interest, with no clear differentiation from someone who abused children. These guidelines place life long stigmas on sex acts without any qualifications.
In Georgia, a woman finds herself scarred for the fact that when she was 17, she was caught performing oral sex on her boyfriend. And now, 12 years later, she's still having to register as a sex offender.
http://www.ajc.com/...
Her neighbors don't know why she was convicted. They don't know the crime or nature. They know she's a creepy sex offender. And, by law, she's stigmatized. Nearby property owners know her. Children can't come near her.
Whitaker, 29, is on the registry for having consensual oral sex with a classmate three weeks before his 16th birthday. Whitaker had just turned 17. Both were high school sophomores.
Because of her 1997 sodomy conviction, Whitaker must register as a sex offender for life and comply with the law’s residency restrictions that bar her from living within 1,000 feet of designated areas where children congregate.
Let me make this clear: as a father of children, I am not opposed to the sex offender registry. At the same time, I believe there are numerous people on the sex offender registry who SHOULD NOT BE THERE, and the fact that we can't discuss the differences in what makes someone a public danger and what makes someone just a victim of unfortunate circumstances is because we are terrified to discuss sex. Would I be terrified of my 8 year old going near a man convicted of multiple child molestations? Hell yes. Would I be terrified of him trick-or-treating at a woman's house who got caught performing oral sex in a school parking lot as a kid? Hell No.
With single strokes of a pen, a federal administration can begin to change this. And it isn't just about sex education in schools. It's about removing some of the fear government puts into enterprise and protecting the right to have the discussion openly without fear of retribution. It's about cleaning up the laws by forcing people to talk about what really makes something a sex crime, and what really makes someone a sex offender.
Over the last eight years, thanks to the FCC, many radio hosts, TV shows, and others have felt as though they were "at risk" for their portrayal of images and lifestyles. Some have felt pressed to change their programming or roles to not offend others.
In a nation where politicians are caught in the beds of more then a few call girls, we continue to press charges against the women who are in this lifestyle while taking a minimal view on those who solicit their services. We make no differences at all between those who openly chose the lifestyle and those who are forced into unhealthy and dangerous sexual practices by human traffickers. Because that's another discussion we're terrified to have.
Acknowledging such a difference is such an uncomfortable ground - such a taboo - that it's not a matter of relating to it, it's that the issue cannot be openly discussed in public forums - we just have to shame everyone involved, no matter what.
Those who practice polyamorous or open relationships? Portrayed as insane lunatics or potential child rapists. Despite the fact that even decades ago Kinsey and others acknowledged that one of the largest unreported groups were husbands/wives who had open adulterous relationships.
More Americans decided to openly and frankly discuss issues of sex. And despite claims of the discussion being solely prurient for sexual gratification, what is obvious is that the discussion of these issues is one of the most important positives for the health - mental, physical and sexual health of people.
Despite the pleas of the overly religious, there are few things in the world guaranteed: taxes, sex & death are amongst them.
It's time for the government to start dispelling myths and ending stigmas. Married couples who participate in out-of-marriage sex aren't necessarily creepy scary people. Not every woman defines the only sex imaginable as PIV (penis-in-vagina). Sex acts that aren't strictly regulated and controlled don't necessarily make you a terrible person, a pedophile, or someone who deserves public scorn. Shockingly, we have to acknowledge some people have sex because they like it, not because they want kids. I realize that's a terrible secret, you know, that you can't discuss sex or sex education without immediately leaping to discussion of babies and all, but I have to think that more then a few people have figured out that the reason why people keep having sex has very little to do with the procreation-only angle. I'm sure if having sex were tied to getting punched in the face or vomitting, it wouldn't be quite as popular. It's a shock but true: people have sex because they enjoy it.
We beat around the bush. Don't ask don't tell. It's not just a military policy, or a policy about homosexuals, it's a policy about how we think about all sex. Put fingers in your ears, scream "la la la" and hope it goes away. What do we have in response to that? A system that has worked diligently to create large groups of people classified as deviants, and that aims to link every possible sexual behavior to the worst imaginable end conclusions.
So what role can the federal government play? Or the state government? First, begin a discussion that changes and really evaluates what can get you on the federal sex offenders list. Grant clemency and remove all those who simply don't belong there. Don't put pressure on the FCC to continue to spike or threaten fines against general air content that shows lifestyles that you may not agree with.
Federal change is a small bit, but a small push in the right direction can make worlds of change. A change in small things can open up the door to discussion. And talking about the issue is good public policy.
(Edited to clarify a thought in regards to Sex Education as I realized this was being interpreted in a way I didn't want it to be)