Who Says It's Private?

The right to privacy has long been treasured in American political culture. We don’t want government to interfere in our personal lives, especially regarding sexuality, and we tend to be skeptical of other busybodies as well. It is a cornerstone for many of the advances in sexual justice and freedom, from reproductive rights to GLBT equality.

Privacy has also been invoked in a negative sense as well – to silence and constrain already marginalized groups. Because our culture deems sex “a private matter,” not only do we proscribe sexually explicit media to ridiculous extremes, but we still debate whether couples should be allowed to hold hands or exchange a kiss in public. More often than not, however, privacy is invoked as a reason for upholding double standards upon those less powerful. A woman can put up a picture of her beloved on her desk at work – but if that beloved is another woman, don’t be surprised if someone accuses her of being “militant” or “flaunting” about her sexuality. A spiritual community will encourage folks to come to events with their partners – but no more than one at a time. And no problem saying where you and your partner met – unless you happened to meet at a fetish-themed nightclub.

Granted, some people are just not ready to hear all of that. But there’s a big difference between admitting personal discomfort, and using it to declare an objective moral rule that certain “private” realities are permanently off limits. Many people see this as a form of rationalization, but I wonder if there’s something deeper at work. Western culture, and American culture especially, is one which discourages folks from admitting to weakness. Admitting personal discomfort with something can sound very much like a personal failing, as opposed to creating a moral proscription based on that discomfort.

Nor is it confined to outright conservatives. Many folks who are comfortable with GLBT friends, or who are queer themselves, may bristle at discussions of polyamory or kink. Often they make the distinction between “orientation” and “behavior” – who you’re drawn to, or what gender with which you identify, versus how many partners or what you choose to do with them. Are they forgetting that holding your beloved’s hand on the street, or displaying their picture in your cubicle or office, is also considered behavior – and also likely to be declared “off limits” by someone who takes offense? Should we not ask ourselves whether it is the behavior itself which makes us uncomfortable, or the reality which it represents?

The very meaning of privacy is the power of the individual to discern and decide which aspects of their lives should be free from intrusion, and from whom – to set a boundary, if you will, between what others can and cannot know about you. Respecting privacy is not merely about staying on your side of the boundary, but letting the other person determine who or what belongs on which side. Should the comfort level of others be a part of that decision? Of course - but not the only part, and certainly not when it threatens one's integrity, or otherwise damages souls or relationships. Boundaries ultimately need to be negotiated, in good faith among equals who are willing to learn and grow together.

Censorship in Oz

Many times sex-positive Americans feel like the clout of our Religious Right is an aberration. Well, it's time they looked at Australia, where they're frequently referred to as wowsers.

Aussies were hit with a double whammy of sex-negative absurdity seeking to censor erotic media. First, the Australian Classification Board wants to ban any sexual depiction of women with small breasts, for fear it will encourage pedophilia. Now they have banned a video of an erotic performance where a woman ejaculated during orgasm, because in their minds she must have urinated -- which, in their minds is an "offensive fetish."

Don't believe me? See for yourself.

Bad enough to have a government that won't let grown-ups be grown-ups, but it's even worse when they are so ignorant about female sexuality. Those of us who prefer small-breasted women know full well the difference between a child and a grown woman with a petite figure. And anyone who's even seen female ejaculate knows (a) it's real, and (b) it's not pee.

And, to make things worse, Australia's Federal government also wants to force Internet providers to install costly and ineffective filters. Given that they can't even get the facts right about sex, how can they be trusted to "protect" people from what they decide are "offensive" images?

So, if there are folks Down Under who are reading this, it's time to speak up. Tell your government that they should keep their hands off the Internet, and that censoring erotic expression is no better than censoring political or religious groups.

And if Australia's political leaders won't listen? Well, I normally don't endorse political parties, but in this case I think it's worth letting you know about the Australian Sex Party. Maybe when the wowsers start losing votes to sex-positive grown-ups, they'll think twice about imposing their ill-informed will on others.

The Real Problem with Pornography - And Suggestions for a Real Solution

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.