Why is sex a political concern?

[wet_suit_one]

So, after reading in Saturday morning's National Post about women being whipped for wearing bras (because they are deceptive ), I wondered again why there is so much interest in political and religious circles in controlling sex?

From prostitution laws to burkhas (granted this is a continuum of examples which is pretty damned extreme, so much so that it's unclear that prostitution laws and burkhas are even related), birth control laws and so on, why o why is it so necessary for societies the world over to regulate sex (oftentimes in utterly nonsensical ways... Whipping people for wearing bras? WTF?)?

What is the fundamental political issue that needs o so desperately to be resolved?

Can anyone answer this riddle?

It was originally asked as why is it necessary to control how people get their orgasms. I realized, over time, it is a broader political question than just that, but that question is it in a nutshell.

Compared to how little regulation we have on other basic activities required for life (breathing, drinking, eating, eliminating and sleeping) it is utterly remarkable how much social, political, religious etc. angst and energy is built up around sex.

So, pooners of Toronto and the world, answer me this riddle if you can.

What are the politics of sexual intercourse in all its variations, and why? No political party stands or falls on what type of toilet you shit in, why do they stand or fall (or even take a stand) on how or where you have sex?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Conservative religions have always used sex laws/codes as a means to control their flocks of sheep.
So it is only natural conservative politicians would carry this over into their political party practices to keep their lemmings in line....

 

[landscaper]

religion is a way of controling some aspects of peoples lives. In the western world getting caught with a mistris is cause to thrown out of office in europe it is a celebration, in other parts of the world it is a hanging ( stoning offence)

The bottom line is that anything that can be used as a control handle will be

 

[Aardvark154]

Even as you wrote Wet_Suit_One, there is a vast difference between a majority of the population feeling that Street Walkers diminish the neighborhood creating a nuisance and causing women to feel unsafe, or feeling similarly about Bordellos in terms of nuisance. And the Government of the Sudan flogging women for wearing pants or bras.

 

[wet_suit_one]

This is exactly the kind of horseshit I'm talking about.

Here we have a situation where the law is unconstitutional, struck down and toasted, and yet it is still enforeced.

What is the law for? For hitting on people in a public place! WTF kind of law is that?

And this is in the USA, Land of the "Free", Home of the "Brave"?

Words fail me...

http://www.slate.com/id/2233014/

 

[WoodPeckr]

This is exactly the kind of horseshit I'm talking about.

Words fail me...

Aardie is good with words, he's a lawyer.
Surely he will clear it all up for you shortly....

 

[Asterix]

Aardie is good with words, he's a lawyer.
Surely he will clear it all up for you shortly....

I wouldn't paint all lawyers with the same brush. There have been some on this board I have respected a great deal. Well, one anyway.

 

[Anynym]

Despite the false accusations levelled above by some, society has a strong interest in at least two aspects (more, but we'll focus on two for now) of sex: one, society has a strong interest in its own preservation, through reproduction and the supports and constraints surrounding the youth of that society. There is a strong interest in ensuring youth are brought up with a moral code compatible with that society, and in ensuring that youth are not a burden to the rest of society.

Second, society has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from the predators who lurk among them, especially those who would prey on susceptible girls.

 

[WoodPeckr]

I wouldn't paint all lawyers with the same brush. There have been some on this board I have respected a great deal. Well, one anyway.

Know who you mean and agree. He added much to this board and is still sorely missed....

 

[wet_suit_one]

I don't think that too much regulation is required with respect to having children. They will happen naturally no matter what. As for the protection of young girls, it's is an interest in some societies and not so much in others. Nonetheless, all societies have all sorts of rules and regulations (legal or otherwise) around sex. Why?

 

[danmand]

Know who you mean and agree. He added much to this board and is still sorely missed....

Yep, we miss him.

 

[Aardvark154]

What is the law for? For hitting on people in a public place! WTF kind of law is that?

What a poorly written article in Slate!

After some hunting what the article deals with is People v. Uplinger et al 447 N.E.2d 62, in which involved a man from Buffalo, who was arrested after soliciting an undercover police officer for sex.

The U.S. Supreme Court took the case (New York v. Uplinger, 467 U.S. 246) on appeal but after hearing oral arguments dismissed it as having been improvidently granted, there being significant confusion in the trial record as to whether the New York Court of Appeals had made it’s ruling on New York State Constitutional Grounds or U.S. Constitutional Grounds. The fact that anti-solicitation laws remain valid in other states a quarter-century later, would indicate that the New York Court of Appeals in fact made it’s finding based on the New York State Constitution.

For someone with much huzpa, an interesting test case in New York would be if gay solicitation is not illegal, is straight solicitation? If no money is mentioned can one harass women across the length and breadth of New York or is that in fact disturbing the peace or another such harassment charge? If it is then should not gay solicitation likewise be charged similarly?


By the by, I certainly wouldn't take my chances soliciting sex in public in Toronto either.

 

[Aardvark154]

I wouldn't paint all lawyers with the same brush. There have been some on this board I have respected a great deal. Well, one anyway.

I believe Don would be among the first to take you to task for anti-lawyer remarks.

 

[Asterix]

I believe Don would be among the first to take you to task for anti-lawyer remarks.

I wouldn't presume to know how he would have responded, but we got along pretty well. I think he would have understood what I meant, and as I said I wasn't referring to all lawyers necessarily.