SEX!
I knew I'd catch your attention with that headline. And that proves the whole point of this post: we're all doing it, we're all interested in it, but our public discussions about it aren't pervasive enough to underline those facts. And when we finally DO discuss it, the language serves to suppress sex-positive attitudes, highlighting instead what our culture deems are sex offenses. When I discuss it, and I often do, some brave souls join in. Most deem me “untouchable” for it.
I hid my previous blog specifically because, although it served the, albeit vengeful, purpose of rebutting the Republican offensive against Bill Clinton by listing at length all known Republican sex offenders, it was a disservice to my cause of helping improve our dialog about sex in a positive way. I am no better than Ken Starr if I'm publicizing sex offenses as he did with Clinton (who's “offense” was arguably not).
Sex-positivity, as I've personally defined it, is really just an acknowledgement of sex's existence, it's nature, and it's positive possibilities. I recently challenged one anti-gay-marriage man by very simply positing that our legal framework today understands the age of consent to be 18. Consenting adults, therefore, should be allowed to enter into contracts of their choosing, regardless of gender or how many people want to enter said contract. Yes, I'm talking about polygamy there. Explain to me, oh nay-sayers, how this legal framework would degrade to condone bestiality or worse, as so many anti-gay people have hypothesized?
Our system functions currently, regarding as an example, child pornography laws, to charge even underage individuals when they send suggestive images of themselves from their cellphones, a practice colloquially called sexting. Such individuals, if found guilty, must register as sex offenders and therefore face public scrutiny for the rest of their lives.
We have made the decision, culturally and by way of age of consent laws, that child pornography is unacceptable. And we've sensationalized it enough that we decided sex offenders should register such that their names, addresses, and other information are public domain, presumably for everyone's protection. Unfortunately, the teenager who sends a cheeky photo of him/herself must now forever face difficulties in housing, employment, or just plain being “normal”, as a consequence of RSO disclosure laws.
We might benefit by calling everyone a victim of our sex-negative media (The old dogs have got a new trick: It's called criminalize the symptoms while we spread the disease.—Ani Difranco). We have a choice: to either slide down the slippery slope of rounding up and banishing sex offenders, or to improve our dialog about sex such that teenagers aren't convinced a sexy photo is their best shot at getting noticed.