What do we do now that the sexual revolution is over?

Over 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.americanhumanist.org/ about/sexual-rights.html--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:

All legal, occupational, economic, and political
discrimination against women should be removed
and all traces of sexism erased. Until women have
equal opportunities, they will be vulnerable to
sexual exploitation by men. In particular, men
must recognize the right of women to control
their own bodies and determine the nature of
their own sexual expression. All individuals--female
or male--are entitled to equal consideration
as persons.

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.

   Many [sexual expressions] that now seem unacceptable
   will very likely become valid in certain
   circumstances. Extramarital sexual relationships
   with the consent of one's partner is [sic] being
   accepted by some. Premarital sexual relationships,
   already accepted in some parts of the world, will
   become even more widely so."

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. However, there are 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

The New Bill attempts 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.

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." 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.

Another subject that cries out for attention is sex trafficking, which now affects millions of people globally.

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.

Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:

* the highest attainable standard of health in relation to sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;

* seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality;

* sexuality education;

* respect for bodily integrity;

* choice of partner;

* decide to be sexually active or not;

* consensual sexual relations;

* consensual marriage;

* decide whether or not, and when to have children; and

* pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life

* The responsible exercise of human rights requires that all persons respect the rights of others

Surprisingly, the New Bill contains no basic definition of sexuality. Here is one WHO uses:

   Sexuality is a central aspect of being human
   throughout life and encompasses sex, gender identities
   and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism,
   pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is
   experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies,
   desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, practices,
   roles and relationships. While sexuality can
   include all of these dimensions, not all of them are
   always experienced or expressed. Sexuality is
   influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological,
   social, economic, political, cultural, ethical,
   legal, historical and religious and spiritual
   factors.

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" 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.

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.

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Government involvement in adultery: an unnecessary threesome.

by Mel Lipman

If you live in Virginia or some other parts of the United States, you may be guilty of breaking the law for not maintaining control over your libido. In August 2004 a Virginia resident pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty hours of community service for committing adultery--still a crime in twenty-four states. Ten states penalize fornication, defined as sex acts between couples who aren't married. In West Virginia and North Carolina, merely flirting or "lewdly and lasciviously associating" with someone other than one's spouse can lead to a conviction for the illegal act of fornication. I'm sure there are many consenting adults who would enjoy being handcuffed while having sex--no harm in that--as long as it isn't the state police doing the cuffing.

Since statistical studies have shown that one out of two married adults have had consensual sex outside of marriage, about 50 percent of married Americans may be sexual outlaws if they live in one of the twenty-four states. This list includes Benjamin Franklin and many other founders of the country. In the land of the free, individual rights supposedly prevail as long as they don't clash with biblically based commandments.

Supporters of such statutes argue that the laws are necessary to "preserve and protect marriages" Interestingly, in the recent Virginia case, the person who filed the complaint wasn't the innocent wife but the man's former lover who was upset when he reconciled with his wife. Most states with such laws punish both involved individuals, while some (for example, Virginia) punish only the married person. And most of these laws don't exempt separated couples or those with a divorce pending.

Laws criminalizing adultery and fornication have rarely been challenged. That's probably because adulterers and fornicators don't want the publicity. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's August 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas has provided the basis for a challenge. The same reasoning given by the Court in the Lawrence decision should also apply to adultery and fornication laws. In the decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writes, "The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code" Kennedy states that adults have the constitutional liberty to decide how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex; those decisions shouldn't be subject to criminal penalties.

In Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence he laments the fact that promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is no longer a legitimate interest of government. Scalia appears to desire the imposition of majority morality on minorities. I wonder what other basic constitutional rights he would subject to a popularity poll. Justice Scalia should rather heed the eloquent words of Justice Robert H. Jackson, who wrote in the 1943 case of West Virginia v. Barnette:

   The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain
   subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place
   them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish
   them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to
   life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom
   of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be
   submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, who had an affair with a married woman while serving as U.S. ambassador to France, would think of his beloved Virginia's fornication and adultery laws. He'd probably say that the laws interfere with citizens' "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Concepts of morality differ among Americans, and forced imposition of the morals of the majority constitutes oppression of minorities. That isn't what the founders of the United States intended. Although adultery laws may be only rarely enforced, such laws should be repealed--as should all laws prohibiting consenting adults from engaging in acts that don't harm others.

Mel Lipman is a Nevada civil liberties attorney and president of the American Humanist Association.

Robin Jacobs is the development assistant for the American Humanist Association. Roy Speckhardt is director of membership and programs for the American Humanist Association. Caitlin Horrigan also contributed to this article.