I think most Americans would say that, legally speaking, any two (heterosexual) consenting adults have the right to go off and have sex with each other. Even most of those who might object on "moral grounds", would surely still agree with the legality of it. And yet, so many of the same people would scream bloody murder if there were a financial exchange involved also in the sexual transaction. Why? Are they not still consenting adults? Even if they are immoral sinners, do they not still have "Free Will"? What is it about the introduction of a monetary component in the arrangement that makes it so unacceptable? Perhaps it is the monetary component that is morally repugnant, rather than the sexual one. The more educated and liberal would include the homosexual in the legal freedom, but even most of them would balk if the "adult" component were in question. It seems many assumptions tend to be automatically involved, whether the assumptions have any truth in them or not.
One assumption seems to be that if a monetary consideration is involved, it somehow makes the whole affair sordid, demeaning, dehumanizing. Why would any self-respecting person voluntarily "sell" (rent is the more accurate term) their body if they were not forced or coerced by others or by circumstance? But then again, why should only sexual activity be included in that ideology? Why would any self-respecting person voluntarily rent their body to others for ANY purpose if they were not forced or coerced by others or by circumstance? What's the difference whether you are a whore for sex or a whore for digging ditches?
What does "adult" mean? There is here, a legally set chronological age for most things which is said to mark "adulthood". But close examination shows there is little logic involved in the setting of these arbitrary numbers. How is it that one is "adult" enough to make the decision for himself to join with a military organization, be issued fearsome weapons with which to kill many other people at 18 years of age, yet the same individual is NOT "adult" enough to make the decision for himself whether or not to drink beer and whiskey until 3 years hence? Alcohol consumption requires three additional years of age more than killing other humans to be acceptable? And what about sexual activity...how old does one have to be for that?
We will often hear then about something other than chronological age, something called "maturity" or the "age of consent". But these are very different things. The "age of consent" is simply another way of referring to the chronological age. "Maturity" refers generally to a psychological state and what is the evidence that this is hard wired to chronology. Have we not all seen "adults" upward of 40 or 50 years whom we would call very "immature"? Have we not seen "children" far short of "adulthood" who engaged in deep thought and reflection and understanding, albeit with an unavoidable shortage of actual life experience?
What about sexual activity with a legal or blood relative? One natural assumption is the impact this might have on potential offspring. Putting that aside for the moment, if there were not going to be any offspring at all, why should anyone have any objections to this...for other people, not for themselves? If my sister and I are 12 and we both like sexual play and it feels good and we are harming no one, why should anyone be allowed to forbid it? Why is the assumption that one (usually the male) is somehow forcing or coercing the other? What if they are not? Oh, but surely if one is "adult" and the other is not, it is a clear situation of "imbalance of power", that is, the adult has more power than the "child". While this is probably true, why does it necessarily follow that the adult is using said superior power to force or coerce the child? Is it not possible that the "child" might very well be interested and voluntarily participate, possibly even initiate the activity? I know when I was six I was very interested in sex, it felt great and I would have much enjoyed my mom or any other female doing it with me. Of course if there had been threats or pain or fear involved, I would have hated that. But I would hate that just as much at 50 as I would at six, and it seems to me a bizarre assumption that such things MUST be included in sexual activity, that involves a "child".
What about work? I began my working life when I was two. Of course I did not understand that at the time, but I did the work nonetheless, mostly picked peppers in the fields. No one forced me to do this...I could as easily have simply sat and played nearby or taken a nap. My parents, especially my mother, were not cruel. I made my first dollar from work when I was four by picking 100 pounds of cotton all by myself in a day. I was very proud of myself and of my dollar. Again, no one forced me to do this...other children played and napped at the ends of the fields under shade trees. I had no interest in playing and certainly not in associating with those children whom I viewed as potential threats. Was it bad to be in an economic situation in which we were forced to work like that in order to get money? If so, why was it not just as bad - maybe worse -for my parents as for me? Would any of us, young or old, black or white, have been in the fields picking cotton if we could have had plenty of food, clothing, housing, etc., without that? If not, how is that not slavery?
There's a bigger box over there, what's in that...
TRB
No comments:
Post a Comment