The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality: Basic Sexual Rights

Posted by Kendall Harmon

5. The right to seek out and engage in consensual sexual activity.

6. The right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.

7. The right to be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior.

8. The recognition by society that every person, partnered or unpartnered, has the right to the pursuit of a satisfying consensual sociosexual life free from political, legal or religious interference and that there need to be mechanisms in society where the opportunities of sociosexual activities are available to the following: disabled persons; chronically ill persons; those incarcerated in prisons, hospitals or institutions; those disadvantaged because of age, lack of physical attractiveness, or lack of social skills; and the poor and the lonely.

Read it all. I will take comments on this by email only because I do not want the thread to veer off topic or begin down an unfortunate trail. Please submit comments to at KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Law & Legal Issues • Sexuality • * Theology • Anthropology • Ethics / Moral Theology • Pastoral Theology


Posted December 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



Comments are closed.
1. Kendall Harmon wrote:

From WJS:

Pretty far afield from “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  I do think that the Founding Fathers would blush to see this website (well, maybe old Ben Franklin would wink, but this is a bit much).

December 15, 8:19 am | [comment link]
2. Kendall Harmon wrote:

From MLiC:

Well I think you posted the 3 real problematic ones there Kendall.
6) “Any acts whatsoever”. So age is no longer required? Sticking to one’s own species no longer required? Keeping it out of public places no longer required?
7) “No persecution” etc. Also means no prosecution I bet. Really backs up #6 and makes a lot of laws “obsolete” don’t you think?
8) As long as it’s “consensual sociosexual life” everybody else just better butt out, right? Especially those pesky laws again.
  And “there need to be mechanisms in society where the opportunities of sociosexual activities are available” to prisoners? Really? Society has to figure out how to let those in prison to have sex? How does this work with already incarcerated sexual offenders? Hmmm, that’s going to go over well.
  And what of those in hospitals/institutions?  How do you determine if those in there are capable of consenting anyway? Or are those some more pesky prosecution problems that need to go away?
Do these people actually ever think through the stuff they back?

Slightly edited.

December 15, 8:21 am | [comment link]
3. Kendall Harmon wrote:

From BHaSF:

Painfully evident by its absence is any mention of what constitutes “consent,” and particularly AGE of consent.

December 15, 8:22 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): Communiqué From the First Annual ACNA Provincial Council

Previous entry (below): The Tablet: The Untold story of 1989--The Catholic Church and the collapse of Communism

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)