This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

The 5 Ton Elephant in the Bedroom – The War on Sex

Republican controlled legislatures and state houses all over the nation are in the midst of passing legislation limiting women’s choice, birth control, sex education, marriage partnerships and a myriad of other statutes connected to sexual behavior or the consequences of sexual behavior. What is the overriding public interest in controlling sexuality, when most consider it to be a very private?  It may seem that I am unfairly singling out Republicans in this piece, but they currently represent today’s social conservatives in society, and that has not always been the case.

I find it to be confusing that the same people who want to get government out of our lives and to focus on an individual’s choice, has taken the hypocritical position of demanding more government to diminish the role and responsibility of the sovereign individual.  Of course, it may not be quite as confusing when one considers the genesis of such extreme conservative positions on sexuality.

If you cut to the heart of the matter, it all comes down to the perspectives and beliefs about human sexuality. Every civilization and society has had a vested interest on propagation and the maintenance of a given social system. This is fundamental to the survival of the species and more specifically the transmission of genetic material to future generations. Throughout our history the basic social unit has been the extended family. It provided protection, both physically and socially, and was the vehicle for transmission of family resources from one generation to another. Sexuality, under these circumstances, was controlled by the family to assure survival of the social structure. Norms and values developed around the situation and required regulation of marriage and marriage choices, since the welfare of the group was dependent on such matches. It was expected and enforced that the needs of the family would take precedence over the needs or desires of the individual.

Find out what's happening in Shorewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Religion has always played a role in validating the prevailing social systems and one need only look to the oldest established religions for examples of such. A dramatic change occurred during the first century C.E. with the development of the new religion of Christianity. Key to the change was the view on sexuality and its place in the new religion. The early founders, beginning primarily with Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), were of the view that sex was a necessary evil, but it must be carefully controlled. As a matter of fact, celibacy and abstinence were preferable beginning with the movements such as the Essences in the 1st century BC and 1st century CE.  This position was as much anti-Roman as anything else, since Roman culture and traditions were highly sexualized.

In the battle between controlling animalistic urges and seeking salvation and entering the Kingdom of G-d; a war on sexuality was declared, which has been a basic principle of the faith every since. Over time it has ebbed and flowed and took a distinct turn during the Protestant Reformation especially in groups like the Puritans, where sexuality was seen as a major sin except for propagation purposes only. They contributed mightily to the founding of some of the national values we have today.

Find out what's happening in Shorewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The GOP of the1960s found unlikely allies during the early 1970s in the fundamental Christian Right, who had always been committed to the control of sexuality. Adopting the positions of the religious right assured support and won elections.

From a view of a purpose to such control and restrictions, on what the majority probably view as private business, the War on Sexuality is being waged on many different fronts; but with one primary reason, forced acceptance and compliance to certain religious perspectives that view sexuality and sexual expression as negative.

What I find curious is that those who want to limit others sexuality based on what they see as wrong or immoral have the choice to abstain from such actions and behavior themselves. For example; no one is forced into having an abortion or forced into participate in sexual activity. Yet, for some reason they think that it is necessary to limit others choices and be forced into giving up their free will. How can this position be justified and defended?

Many of those who wish to limit sexual choices and behaviors are also adamant about defending 2nd amendment rights and attempt to avoid all restrictions and regulations affecting those rights, yet think nothing of limiting others from other rights.

I would like to see someone come forward and defend their position, especially since it will, most likely, come down to a theological argument. Other than to protect people from certain sexual practices and behaviors, there is absolutely no reason to pass such legislation as to severely limit people’s choices.




We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Shorewood